Behavioural indicators of responsible gambling consumption

RESEARCH REPORT

Behavioural indicators of responsible gambling consumption Nerilee Hing Experimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Human, Health and Social Sciences, Central Queensland University

Alex Russell Experimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Human, Health and Social Sciences, Central Queensland University

Anastasia Hronis Centre for Gambling Education and Research, Southern Cross University

October 2016

© Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation 2016

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia license. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs, branding or logos. This report has been peer reviewed by two independent researchers. For further information on the foundation’s peer review process of research reports, please see responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au. Disclaimer The opinions, findings and proposals contained in this report represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the attitudes or opinions of the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation or the State of Victoria. No warranty is given as to the accuracy of the information. The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation specifically excludes any liability for any error or inaccuracy in, or omissions from, this document and any loss or damage that you or any other person may suffer.

From betting on the races with Dad to professional punter: my journey

Acknowledgements The research team acknowledges the financial support to conduct this project that was provided by the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. We also gratefully acknowledge the input of the many professionals who devoted valuable time to responding to the expert survey. Your contribution is highly valued.

Online magazine

Conflict of interest declaration The authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to this report or project. To cite this report Hing, N, Russell, A & Hronis, A 2016, Behavioural indicators of responsible gambling consumption, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Melbourne. Enquiries Sean O’Rourke +61 3 9452 2644 sean.o’[email protected] Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Level 6, 14–20 Blackwood Street North Melbourne Victoria 3051

See Inside gambling for the latest information, evidence and expert opinion on gambling issues in Australia and overseas.

PO Box 2156 Royal Melbourne Hospital Victoria 3050 Telephone: +61 3 9452 2600 responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au

Teenage gambling: a business that’s only getting riskier

A Victoria free from gambling-related harm

Sport and gambling – loving the odds more than the game?

Hear from:

• public health experts

• gambling sector professionals

• people with firsthand experience of gambling problems Subscribe to Inside gambling vicrgf

responsiblegambling

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation

ResponsibleGambling

insidegambling.com.au

Five minutes with...

Gambler’s Help financial counsellor, Pam Mutton

Let us know what you’d like to read If you have ideas for themes or stories for Inside gambling, we would love to hear from you. Go to: insidegambling.com.au/contact-us

Behavioural indicators of responsible gambling consumption

Hing, Russell & Hronis

Table of Contents Table of Contents List of tables List of figures Executive summary Background and aim of the study Methods Results Key principles underpinning responsible gambling consumption A definition of responsible gambling consumption Preliminary set of behavioural indicators of responsible gambling Limitations of the study Conclusions and implications

i iii vi 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 6 6

Chapter one: Background 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Towards responsible gambling 1.3 Research aim 1.4 Overview of research stages and report structure

9 9 9 12 13

Chapter two: Approach 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Methods for Stage one: Literature review 2.3 Methods for Stage two: Content analysis of websites 2.4 Consultation with gambling experts

14 14 14 17 19

Chapter three: Literature review 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Responsible provision of gambling 3.3 Responsible gambling consumption 3.4 Chapter conclusion

25 25 25 38 52

Chapter four: Content analysis of websites 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Definitions of responsible gambling 4.3 Responsible gambling strategies 4.5 Chapter conclusion

54 54 54 57 69

Chapter five: Expert survey 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Defining responsible gambling consumption and its objectives 5.3 Importance of categories of RCG behaviours 5.4 ‘Ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’ category 5.5 ‘Keeping gambling in balance’ category 5.6 ‘Limiting persistence at gambling’ category 5.7 ‘Use help and support if needed’ category 5.8 ‘Understanding gambling’ category 5.9 ‘Positive motivations for gambling’ category 5.10 ‘A planned approach to gambling’ category 5.11 Additional behaviours and categories

72 72 72 74 75 77 79 82 84 87 89 91


Page i



5.12 Relationship between adherence to responsible gambling behaviours and gambling-related harm 5.13 The concept of responsible gambling 5.14 Who should responsible gambling consumption messages and guidelines target? 5.15 Promotion of responsible gambling messages 5.16 Whose responsibility is it to ensure people gamble responsibly? 5.17 Responsible gambling consumption limits 5.18 Potential concerns with responsible gambling 5.19 Revisiting definitions, aims and objectives of responsible gambling consumption 5.20 Chapter conclusion

92 94 95 97 100 102 103 104 105

Chapter six: Discussion, conclusions and implications 6.1 Introduction 6.2 What is responsible gambling consumption? A definition and underlying principles 6.3 The promotion of responsible gambling consumption 6.4 Categories of responsible gambling behaviours and their importance 6.5 Which behaviours are thought to support responsible gambling consumption? 6.6 A preliminary set of behavioural indicators of responsible consumption of gambling 6.7 Limitations of the study 6.8 Conclusions and implications

107 107 107 109 110 110 114 117 117

References Appendix A – Mapping of items from literature review and content analysis to expert survey Appendix B – Expert survey instrument Appendix C – Detailed results from the content analysis Appendix D – Statistical results for comparisons in the expert survey Appendix E – Publications sourced in the systematic literature review

120 134 138 169 212 233


Page ii



List of tables Table ES.1. Preliminary set of behavioural indicators of responsible consumption of gambling 5 Table 2.1. Categories of responsible gambling operator practices and consumption behaviours in the literature review16 Table 2.2. Websites included in the content analysis 18 Table 3.1. List of responsible provision of gambling practices 28 Table 3.2. List of responsible gambling consumption strategies 43 Table 4.1. Definitions of responsible gambling 54 Table 4.2. Frequency of different constructs in website definitions of responsible gambling 56 Table 4.3. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to managing overall finances 58 Table 4.4. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to managing overall finances 59 Table 4.5. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to monetary limits 60 Table 4.6. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to monetary limits 61 Table 4.7. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to time restrictions 62 Table 4.8. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to time restrictions 62 Table 4.9. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to taking an informed approach to gambling 63 Table 4.10. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to taking an informed approach to gambling 64 Table 4.11. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to avoid gambling opportunities 65 Table 4.12. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to avoid gambling opportunities 65 Table 4.13. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to motivations for gambling 66 Table 4.14. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to motivations for gambling 66 Table 4.15. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to using social supports 67 Table 4.16. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to using additional social supports 67 Table 4.17. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to using help services 68 Table 4.18. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to using help services 68 Table 4.19. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to engaging in other activities 68 Table 4.20. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to engaging in other activities 69 Table 4.21. Number of strategies and % of strategies promoted per type of website 70 Table 4.22. Frequency of commonly reported responsible gambling strategies 70 Table 5.1. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that consumers gamble responsibly? Mean (and SD) proportion of responsibility allocated to each of the following, and proportion of respondents allocating 0 and 100% to each 101 Table 6.1. Preliminary set of behavioural indicators of responsible consumption of gambling 116 Table A.1. Mapping of items from literature review and content analysis to expert survey 134 Table C.1. Government websites: Strategies relating to managing overall finances 169 Table C.2. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to managing overall finances 170 Table C.3. Industry websites: Strategies relating to managing overall finances 171 Table C.4. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to managing overall finances 172


Page iii



Table C.5. Help service websites: Strategies relating to managing overall finances 173 Table C.6. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to managing overall finances 174 Table C.7. Government websites: Strategies relating to monetary limits 175 Table C.8. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to monetary limits 176 Table C.9. Industry websites: Strategies relating to monetary limits 177 Table C.10. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to monetary limits 178 Table C.11. Help service websites: Strategies relating to monetary limits 179 Table C.12. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to monetary limits 181 Table C.13. Government websites: Strategies relating to time restrictions 182 Table C.14. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to time restrictions 183 Table C.15. Industry websites: Strategies relating to time restrictions 183 Table C.16. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to time restrictions 184 Table C.17. Help service websites: Strategies relating to time restrictions 185 Table C.18. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to time restrictions 186 Table C.19. Government websites: Strategies relating to taking an informed approach to gambling 187 Table C.20. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to taking an informed approach to gambling 188 Table C.21. Industry websites: Strategies relating to taking an informed approach to gambling 189 Table C.22. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to taking an informed approach to gambling 190 Table C.23. Help service websites: Strategies relating to taking an informed approach to gambling 191 Table C.24. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to taking an informed approach to gambling 192 Table C.25. Government websites: Strategies relating to avoid gambling opportunities 193 Table C.26. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to avoiding gambling opportunities 194 Table C.27. Industry websites: Strategies relating to avoiding gambling opportunities 194 Table C.28. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to avoiding gambling opportunities 195 Table C.29. Help service websites: Strategies relating to avoiding gambling opportunities 196 Table C.30. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to avoiding gambling opportunities 197 Table C.31. Government websites: Strategies relating to motivations for gambling 198 Table C.32. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to motivations for gambling 198 Table C.33. Industry websites: Strategies relating to motivations for gambling 199 Table C.34. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to motivations for gambling 199 Table C.35. Help service websites: Strategies relating to motivations for gambling 200 Table C.36. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to motivations for gambling 201 Table C.37. Government websites: Strategies relating to using social supports 202 Table C.38. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to using additional social supports 202 Table C.39. Industry websites: Strategies relating to using social supports 203 Table C.40. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to using social supports 203 Table C.41. Help service websites: Strategies relating to using social supports 204 Table C.42. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to using social supports 205 Table C.43. Government websites: Strategies relating to using help services 206 Table C.44. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to using help services 206 Table C.45. Industry websites: Strategies relating to using help services 207 Table C.46. Help service websites: Strategies relating to using help services 207 Table C.47. Government websites: Strategies relating to engaging in other activities 208 Table C.48. Industry websites: Strategies relating to engaging in other activities 208 Table C.49. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to engaging in other activities 209 Table C.50. Help service websites: Strategies relating to engaging in other activities 210 Table C.51. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to engaging in other activities 211 Table D.1. Statistical results for comparisons between terms or concepts that have been associated with responsible gambling consumption 212 Table D.2. Statistical results for comparisons between the rated importance of each of the seven behavioural categories 213


Page iv



Table D.3. Statistical results for comparisons between the overall importance of each of the behaviours in the ‘ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’ category of behaviours 214 Table D.4. Statistical results for comparisons of the rated importance of each behaviour for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers in the ‘ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’ category of behaviours 215 Table D.5. Statistical results for comparisons between the overall importance of each of the behaviours in the ‘keeping gambling in balance’ category of behaviours 215 Table D.6. Statistical results for comparisons of the rated importance of each behaviour for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers in the ‘keeping gambling in balance’ category of behaviours 216 Table D.7. Statistical results for comparisons between the overall importance of each of the behaviours in the ‘limiting persistence at gambling’ category of behaviours 217 Table D.8. Statistical results for comparisons of the rated importance of each behaviour for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers in the ‘limiting persistence at gambling’ category of behaviours 220 Table D.9. Statistical results for comparisons between the overall importance of each of the behaviours in the ‘use help and support if needed’ category of behaviours 221 Table D.10. Statistical results for comparisons of the rated importance of each behaviour for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers in the ‘use help and support if needed’ category of behaviours 222 Table D.11. Statistical results for comparisons between the overall importance of each of the behaviours in the ‘understanding gambling’ category of behaviours 223 Table D.12. Statistical results for comparisons of the rated importance of each behaviour for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers in the ‘understanding gambling’ category of behaviours 225 Table D.13. Statistical results for comparisons between the overall importance of each of the behaviours in the ‘’positive’ motivations for gambling’ category of behaviours 226 Table D.14. Statistical results for comparisons of the rated importance of each behaviour for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers in the ‘’positive’ motivations for gambling’ category of behaviours 226 Table D.15. Statistical results for comparisons between the overall importance of each of the behaviours in the ‘a planned approach to gambling’ category of behaviours 227 Table D.16. Statistical results for comparisons of the rated importance of each behaviour for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers in the ‘a planned approach to gambling’ category of behaviours 228 Table D.17. Statistical results for comparisons between rated likelihood that the average person who adheres to the aforementioned responsible gambling behaviours experiences no, minor or major gambling-related harm 228 Table D.18. Statistical results for comparisons between rated likelihood that the average person who adheres to the aforementioned responsible gambling behaviours is a non-problem, at-risk or problem gambler 228 Table D.19. Statistical results for comparisons between rated likelihood that the average person who adheres to the aforementioned responsible gambling behaviours experiences benefits, no effects, or detriments to their health and wellbeing from their gambling 229 Table D.20. Statistical results for comparisons between rated agreement that responsible gambling messages and guidelines should target problem, at-risk and non-problem gamblers 229 Table D.21. Statistical results for comparisons between rated receptiveness of problem, at-risk and non-problem gamblers to the term ‘responsible gambling’ 229 Table D.22. Statistical results for comparisons between rated adequateness of the promotion of responsible gambling consumption by each of the following bodies 229 Table D.23. Statistical results for comparisons between rated adequateness of the promotion of responsible gambling consumption for each type of gambling activity 230 Table D.24. Statistical results for comparisons between rated proportion of responsibility for responsible gambling consumption allocated 231 Table D.25. Statistical results for comparisons between rated likelihood that the average person who adheres to the aforementioned responsible gambling behaviours experiences benefits, no effects, or detriments to their health and wellbeing from their gambling 232 Table D.26. Statistical results for comparisons between rated likelihood that the average person who adheres to the aforementioned responsible gambling behaviours experiences benefits, no effects, or detriments to their health and wellbeing from their gambling 232


Page v



List of figures Figure 1.1 Flowchart of the literature selection process 15 Figure 5.1. Percentage of experts who endorsed each term or concept that has been associated with RCG. 74 Figure 5.2. Mean (and SE) rated importance of seven behavioural categories in terms of RCG behaviour. 75 Figure 5.3. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour 76 Figure 5.4. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status. 77 Figure 5.5. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘keeping gambling in balance’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour 78 Figure 5.6. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘keeping gambling in balance’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status. 79 Figure 5.7. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘limiting persistence at gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour 80 Figure 5.8. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘limiting persistence at gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status. 82 Figure 5.9. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘use help and support if needed’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour 83 Figure 5.10. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘use help and support if needed’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status. 84 Figure 5.11. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘understanding gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour 85 Figure 5.12. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘understanding gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status. 87 Figure 5.13. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘’positive’ motivations for gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour 88 Figure 5.14. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘’positive’ motivations for gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status. 89 Figure 5.15. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘a planned approach to gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour 90 Figure 5.16. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘a planned approach to gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status. 91 Figure 5.17. Mean (and SD) rated likelihood that the average person who adheres to the aforementioned RCG behaviours experiences no, minor or major gambling-related harm 92 Figure 5.18. Mean (and SE) rated likelihood that the average person who adheres to the aforementioned RCG behaviours is a non-problem, at-risk or problem gambler 93 Figure 5.19. Mean (and SD) rated likelihood that the average person who adheres to the aforementioned RCG behaviours experiences benefits, no effects, or detriments to their health and wellbeing from their gambling 94 Figure 5.20. Mean (and SE) rated agreement with statements about the term RG 95 Figure 5.21. Mean (and SE) rated agreement that RCG messages and guidelines should target problem, at-risk and non-problem gamblers 96 Figure 5.22. Mean (and SE) rated receptiveness of problem, at-risk and non-problem gamblers to the term ‘responsible gambling’ 96 Figure 5.23. Mean (and SE) rated agreement with the statements about RCG 97 Figure 5.24. Mean (and SE) rated adequateness of the promotion of RCG by each of the following bodies 98 Figure 5.25. Mean (and SE) rated adequateness of the promotion of RCG for each type of gambling activity 99 Figure 5.26. Best terminology for RCG for the general public 100 Figure 5.27. Percentage of respondents saying that too little, about right, or too much emphasis is placed on gamblers to self-regulate, gambling operators to provide safe products and environments and governments to implement safe gambling policies. 101 Figure 5.28. Mean (and SE) rated liberalness/conservativeness of the following RG limits 102 Figure 5.29. Mean (and SE) rated importance of the following RG limits 103 Figure 5.30. Mean (and SE) rated agreement with the statements about concerns about RG 104


Page vi



Executive summary Background and aim of the study ‘Responsible gambling’ is an ambiguous and contested concept that nonetheless underpins the vast majority of government, industry and public health efforts to minimise the harm from gambling. Following an earlier emphasis on responsible provision of gambling (RPG) which focused on providing gambling products, environments and policies that promote safe gambling behaviour, responsible consumption of gambling (RCG) now emphasises the need for consumers to regulate and restrain their own behaviours. This shift in emphasis has attracted substantial criticism for its location of the ‘problem’ within individual gamblers, for being stigmatising and unhelpful for people experiencing gambling problems, and for ignoring responsibilities of governments and gambling operators to provide and promote gambling in ways that prevent or minimise harm. The current study is not driven by a particular stance on this issue, nor does it promote a particular viewpoint. Its focus on RCG should not be interpreted as endorsing the idea that consumers carry most responsibility for responsible gambling (RG). Instead, the study takes a pragmatic approach in recognising that RCG is now the dominant paradigm driving harm minimisation efforts in Australia and elsewhere. Gamblers are urged to ‘gamble responsibly’, but no accepted definition, foundation principles or behavioural indicators of RCG exist. The aim of this study, therefore, was to develop a preliminary set of behavioural indicators of RCG – that is, the first set of commonly understood behavioural markers associated with gambling responsibly. It must be stressed that the behavioural indicators developed in this study are preliminary, and will require validation in subsequent research. We also emphasise that, while developing and promoting a validated set of behavioural indicators of RCG can provide muchneeded consumer guidelines on how to ‘gamble responsibly’, this represents just one type of strategy for behavioural change. The public health literature promotes the use of a broad range of strategies to optimise behavioural change, such as regulation, policy, law, reducing availability, price controls, and restrictions on marketing; these broader strategies are not considered further in this report.

Methods Three main sources of data were collected and examined: a comprehensive literature review, a content analysis of gambling-related websites, and a survey of experts.

Stage one: Comprehensive literature review The authors conducted a comprehensive literature review based on both systematic and nonsystematic searches. A systematic search identified 96 publications directly focused on RG and enabled the development of eight categories of RPG (operator practices) and nine categories of RCG (consumer behaviours). A non-systematic search was then conducted of literature relevant to each category, enabling a comprehensive review of research into each practice and behaviour. A non-systematic approach was taken here due to the enormous volume of search terms (and subsequent publications) that would have been needed to cover the breadth of operator and consumer practices in RG. Overall, 55 RPG practices (grouped into eight overarching categories) and 57 RCG behaviours (grouped into nine overarching categories) were identified. The output of Stage one (along with Stage two) formed the basis for the Stage three consultation with experts.


Page 1



Stage one also confirmed the lack of an accepted definition of RCG and of an agreed set of underlying objectives or principles for RCG.

Stage two: Content analysis of websites A content analysis of online consumer information on RCG was undertaken because this is the main source of consumer guidelines on how to ‘gamble responsibly’. This stage therefore enabled identification of RCG strategies additional to those identified in the literature review. A purposive sample of 30 websites was analysed. The websites analysed were those of 25 major Australian gambling help services, government agencies and industry operators, as well as five prominent international websites. Websites were selected that were most comprehensive in their RCG information to assist in developing the most inclusive set of RCG behaviours possible. Six government websites, 10 industry websites and 14 help service websites were analysed for their RCG definitions, descriptions and guidelines. The analysis framework commenced with the nine categories and 57 RCG behaviours identified in Stage one. In total, 88 additional behaviours were added as they were located on the websites. The total of 145 behaviours identified in Stages one and two informed the development of the survey instrument administered to experts in Stage three. Stage two also confirmed the lack of a consistent definition of RCG in consumer information and lack of clarity about its underlying principles or goals.

Stage three: Expert consultation Experts in the field were consulted to generate definitions of RCG and its underlying principles, and to refine the set of behavioural indicators of RCG. This consultation was conducted through an online survey to gain input from a reasonably large purposive sample from around the world. The sample comprised professional contacts of the research team, attendees at a recent Australian gambling conference, and members of the major international online forum for gambling professionals. In total, 107 completed surveys were received. Respondents most commonly worked in research (41.1 per cent), treatment/counselling (23.4 per cent) or training/education (19.6 per cent), with 7.5 per cent working in policy or regulation and 8.4 per cent working in, or retired from, another gambling-related professional role. These experts were asked to define RCG; identify its underlying goals and objectives; rate the importance of the overarching categories of RCG behaviours; and rate the importance of each specific behaviour to non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers. They were also asked several questions – about the concept of RCG, who RCG messages should target, the promotion of RCG, the most appropriate terminology, who has responsibility for RCG, the utility of RCG limits, and potential concerns with RCG. The survey incorporated the RCG behaviours identified in Stages one and two, but these were refined for the survey into seven categories containing a total of 61 behaviours. This was done by collapsing overlapping behaviours and by generalising behaviours that only applied to one gambling form.

Results As noted above, neither the literature review in Stage one nor the content analysis in Stage two revealed a consistent set of principles or goals underpinning RCG. In Stage three, the goals and objectives of RCG endorsed by over half the experts, in descending order of agreement, were: gambling within an individual’s affordable limits of time, money and other resources; keeping


Page 2



gambling in balance with other activities and priorities; exercising informed choice about gambling; understanding the risks associated with gambling; staying in control of gambling; absence of gambling-related harm; adhering to pre-set time and money limits when gambling; an enjoyable/pleasurable gambling experience; and self-regulating one’s own gambling. The experts rated all seven categories of RCG behaviours as at least moderately important, with the most important being ‘ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’, followed by ‘keeping gambling in balance’, then ‘limiting persistence at gambling’. All specific behaviours within each category were also considered at least moderately important for at-risk and problem gamblers to adopt, and most were deemed to be either very important or extremely important. All specific behaviours were considered significantly more important for at-risk and problem gamblers than for non-problem gamblers, although most were still seen as moderately important for non-problem gamblers. There was some ambivalence about the term ‘responsible gambling’. Most experts felt the term was stigmatising and discouraging for people having difficulties controlling their gambling. Most also felt that problem gamblers would not be particularly receptive to the term – although at-risk and problem gamblers would be more receptive. The terms ‘low-risk gambling’ or ‘safe gambling’ were favoured nearly as much as ‘responsible gambling’. The experts overwhelmingly considered RG to be poorly understood by consumers and inadequately promoted in a meaningful way. They considered the existing consumer guidelines for RG inappropriate and lacking evidence of their efficacy. Promotion of RG, particularly by industry and governments, was seen as inadequate for all forms of gambling, but especially deficient in relation to EGM gambling, sports betting and race betting. While the experts considered that gamblers themselves have most responsibility to ensure that consumers gamble responsibly, the gambling industry and governments were also seen as having substantial responsibility. Similarly, the experts felt that too much emphasis was placed on gamblers to self-regulate their gambling, with too little emphasis placed on industry to provide safe gambling products and environments, and on governments to implement safe gambling policies. The experts indicated overall support for the development and promotion of RCG limits for gambling frequency, session duration and expenditure. Most experts also agreed that it is possible to develop an evidence-based set of RCG behaviours which are practical for consumers, despite the large variations in gamblers’ personal circumstances, disposable income and other characteristics.

Key principles underpinning responsible gambling consumption From the three data sources (literature review, content analysis and expert survey), the key principles underpinning RCG were distilled as follows: 

affordability – gambling within an individual’s affordable limits of time, money and other resources, which may involve setting and adhering to limits in advance of gambling



balance – keeping gambling in balance with other activities, responsibilities and priorities so that it does not compromise other aspects of the gambler’s life


Page 3





informed choice – exercising informed choice over gambling, which includes understanding the associated risks, not being influenced by erroneous gambling beliefs, and knowing the odds or the likelihood of losing and winning



control – staying in control of gambling through self-regulating one’s own gambling and by knowing when to stop



enjoyment – an enjoyable/pleasurable gambling experience, motivated by gambling only for pleasure, entertainment and fun and not to win money



harm-free – the absence of gambling-related harm to self and others, including gambling in a way that avoids the development of gambling problems.

A definition of responsible gambling consumption The above principles can be combined to formulate the following definition of RCG: Exercising control and informed choice to ensure that gambling is kept within affordable limits of money and time, is enjoyable, in balance with other activities and responsibilities, and avoids gambling-related harm.

Preliminary set of behavioural indicators of responsible gambling Following the expert survey, refinements were made to develop the preliminary set of behavioural indicators of RCG. Of the 61 original behaviours, only those considered at least moderately important for all three groups of gamblers (non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers) were retained for inclusion. This decision was based on the experts’ strong majority agreement that RCG messages and guidelines should target all gamblers. Ten items were discarded on this basis. The final set of preliminary indicators contains 51 behaviours grouped into seven categories, as shown in Table ES.1. These indicators now require validation in subsequent research to create a Behavioural Indicators of Responsible Gambling Scale (BIRGS). This validation may involve the use of psychometric theory and factor analysis of the initial list of behaviours to identify underlying constructs.


Page 4



Table ES.1. Preliminary set of behavioural indicators of responsible consumption of gambling Ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable 1. Only gamble with money that is not needed for necessities such as bills, rent, food, etc. 2. Avoid borrowing money or getting money on credit (including credit cards) to gamble with 3. Only gamble what you can afford to lose 4. Set an affordable gambling budget 5. Set deposit limits for Internet gambling accounts 6. Use only online gambling websites with daily spend limits Keeping gambling in balance 7. Ensure that you gamble in a way that does not cause harm or problems for other individuals 8. Ensure that gambling doesn’t dominate your leisure time 9. Ensure that gambling doesn’t dominate your thoughts when you are not gambling 10. Engage in other leisure activities, hobbies or interests other than gambling 11. Prioritise your responsibilities (e.g., to family, friends, work, study) over gambling Limiting persistence at gambling 12. Avoid chasing losses when gambling 13. Avoid increasing bets when losing 14. Set and stick to a limit on how much money you spend when you gamble 15. Avoid increasing bets when winning 16. Avoid betting on every race/sport/other gambling outcome 17. Avoid having multiple online gambling accounts 18. Set and stick to a limit on your maximum bet size when you gamble 19. Set and stick to a limit on how often you gamble 20. Cash out all or a portion of winnings and don’t gamble those winnings later in the session 21. Set and stick to a limit on how long you gamble for each session 22. Take frequent breaks when gambling Understanding gambling 23. Understand that gambling outcomes are affected by chance – that any skill will not ensure a win 24. Understand that gambling for longer makes no difference to your chances of winning 25. Understand that feeling lucky makes no difference to your chances of winning 26. Expect to lose when gambling 27. Understand that you cannot win money from gambling in the long run 28. Ensure that you do not overestimate your skill at gambling 29. Understand the odds before you gamble 30. Think about the possible negative consequences of gambling (e.g. financial, relationship or personal problems) 31. Read the fine print on promotions before you enter them 32. Think about how long it took to save the money that you use to gamble 33. Think about how you feel when your gambling money is gone 34. Think about other things that the money spent on gambling could be used for ‘Positive’ motivations for gambling 35. Avoid gambling to pay bills 36. Avoid gambling in order to make money 37. Only gamble for entertainment/fun/pleasure 38. Avoid gambling when you feel depressed or upset 39. Avoid taking gambling too seriously, as it is just a game 40. Avoid gambling to impress or challenge other people 41. Avoid gambling to relieve boredom A planned approach to gambling 42. Avoid gambling when affected by alcohol or recreational drugs 43. Don’t give in to peer pressure to gamble 44. Avoid gambling with heavy gamblers 45. Avoid gambling in the heat of the moment 46. Avoid being tempted to gamble by advertisements or promotions Use help and support if needed 47. Seek professional gambling help if needed 48. Self-exclude from gambling venues and/or websites if needed 49. Block online gambling websites if needed 50. Have someone in your life who you can talk to openly about gambling 51. Develop a support network


Page 5



Limitations of the study The findings of this study should be interpreted with the following limitations in mind: 

The literature review and content analysis may have overlooked some RCG behaviours, especially given that the content analysis was restricted to 30 websites. However, it is unlikely that important behaviours were overlooked given that the experts could not identify any additional behaviours or categories of behaviours for inclusion.



The sample of experts was selected based on professional contacts and subscribers to the major international discussion group for professionals working with gambling issues. As well, the response rate was low despite a reasonably generous incentive and follow-up reminders. While purposive sampling is highly appropriate when seeking expert views, the views gathered may not be representative of all experts in the field. Furthermore, expert views might not always be commensurate with the views of consumers. As noted earlier, the BIRGS now requires validation amongst samples of gamblers.

The study did not include a validation stage to finalise the BIRGS, as this proposed stage was not funded. Clearly, validating the BIRGS is a key recommendation for further research.

Conclusions and implications This study has developed a definition and identified a set of underlying principles of responsible consumption of gambling, and developed a preliminary set of behavioural indicators. Three stages of research were conducted and comprised a literature review, website analysis and expert survey. The literature review revealed substantial ambiguity surrounding the concept of responsible gambling, especially in relation to responsible consumption of gambling. No agreed definition or set of underlying principles for responsible consumption of gambling were found, and it was unclear which gambler risk groups should be targeted by related messages and guidelines. Little research has been conducted to understand the behaviours and strategies that gamblers can engage in to gamble responsibly, with most of this limited research focused on setting monetary and time limits. A few studies have examined self-regulatory strategies that gamblers use, but there is little research evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of these strategies. Further research is needed to develop an evidence-based set of strategies for gambling responsibly. The content analysis of 30 gambling-related websites revealed substantial variation in terms of how responsible gambling is defined and described, and the strategies the websites promote to consumers to assist them to gamble responsibly. Current consumer guidelines have been developed on an ad hoc basis without any evidence for their efficacy – either in isolation or when combined. Future policy, practice and research would benefit from the adoption of a consistent definition of RCG and its underlying principles; development of specific behavioural indicators of responsible consumption of gambling that have been validated for their efficacy; and promotion of these behaviours in a consistent manner across websites and other media. The survey of 107 experts informed the development of a definition and a set of underlying principles for responsible consumption of gambling, and helped to refine a preliminary set of behavioural indicators for validation in subsequent research. Developing and promoting responsible gambling guidelines was considered highly important by the experts, who considered the current approach to promoting the ‘gamble responsibly’ message inadequate. The experts held


Page 6



concerns that this message is stigmatising; that it locates the problem within the individual gambler; and that it places too little emphasis on gambling operators and governments to provide safe gambling products, environments, policies and practices. Nevertheless, they conveyed substantial confidence that it is possible to develop an evidence-based and practical set of responsible gambling guidelines for consumers. This study has laid the groundwork for developing and validating a Behavioural Indicators of Responsible Gambling Scale (BIRGS), which will comprise the first evidence-based set of behavioural markers associated with gambling responsibly. The definition, the underlying principles and the BIRGS potentially have multiple applied and theoretical uses: 

Governments, public health agencies, gambling help services, community agencies and the gambling industry could consistently adopt the definition, principles and behavioural indicators to promote a consistent message to the population regarding responsible consumption of gambling. Promoting a more consistent message and a set of identifiable, evidence-based responsible consumption of gambling behaviours would enhance the resonance and effectiveness of public health campaigns.



Consumers would benefit from knowing a set of clear and consistently promoted behaviours that constitute responsible consumption of gambling. They could use these behaviours to guide their own gambling behaviour, to assess their own and others’ gambling, and to recognise when their gambling is risky.



The BIRGS could be used as a simple self-assessment test for consumers. For example, it could be included as a self-appraisal tool on gambling-related websites – to ask consumers, ‘Are you gambling responsibly? Take this simple quiz and find out’ – along with helpful suggestions for how to change behaviour if appropriate. This self-assessment test could be an interesting, useful and easy-to-administer tool from a public health perspective.



Administering the BIRGS to a representative population sample would enable the prevalence of responsible consumption of gambling to be ascertained. This prevalence could be measured both overall and in relation to sub-groups, such as gamblers on different forms of gambling, those using different modes (e.g., land-based, online, mobile), and gamblers with different socio-demographic characteristics. These prevalence estimates and analyses could then inform the targeting of public health messages, materials and media by identifying the gambling forms, gambling modes and sociodemographic groups displaying the least adoption of responsible consumption of gambling behaviours.



Detailed analyses of the types of responsible consumption of gambling behaviours that are most and least adopted would also inform public health campaigns that aim to increase the prevalence of responsible behaviours among gamblers. These campaigns might focus on behaviours with low use to encourage their wider adoption.



The BIRGS would enable the monitoring over time of the ongoing health of the community in relation to responsible consumption of gambling. Longitudinal research using the BIRGS could be used to evaluate the impacts of new responsible gambling initiatives, changes in gambling policy, and interventions aimed at promoting responsible gambling (e.g. precommitment).


Page 7





The BIRGS could also be used to assess the efficacy of responsible provision of gambling practices by industry and to highlight specific responsible consumption of gambling behaviours they may or may not encourage in consumers. Such assessments would inform improved industry practices in responsible provision of gambling.



The BIRGS would provide an invaluable public health research and evaluation tool that could be used to assess responsible consumption of gambling among the population of gamblers, sub-groups of gamblers, patrons of specific venues, and diverse or vulnerable population groups.



Analysis of the association between responsible consumption of gambling behaviours and levels of gambling consumption would help to identify a level (or range) of consumption most associated with responsible consumption of gambling behaviour, non-problem gambler status on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI; Ferris & Wynne 2001) and absence of gambling urges and harmful consequences from gambling. Doing so would provide evidence of which responsible consumption of gambling behaviours are related to reduced incidence of problem gambling and its adverse effects. This could inform public health information and advice so that promoted responsible consumption of gambling behaviours were based on evidence that supported their efficacy.



Responsible consumption of gambling needs to be promoted in a more meaningful way (beyond the ‘gamble responsibly’ slogan) to better assist consumers to maintain safe levels of gambling. The development of validated behaviours and guidelines, as well as specific safe gambling limits, would assist this effort.



Research could identify the terminology for responsible consumption of gambling/safe gambling/low-risk gambling that best resonates with gamblers from all gambler risk groups.



Continued efforts in developing and promoting responsible consumption of gambling indicators should be considered a complementary strategy for reducing the harm from gambling, and not as a replacement for industry and government responsibilities to ensure consumer protection and harm minimisation in gambling.


Page 8



Chapter one: Background 1.1 Introduction Recent emphasis on the responsible consumption of gambling products and services has occurred against a backdrop of changing policy approaches to gambling, shifting conceptualisations of problem gambling, and contested views on who is responsible for responsible gambling (RG). To provide context for this study, this introductory chapter briefly reviews these developments, before explaining the aims of the study and the structure of this report.

1.2 Towards responsible gambling Policy approaches to gambling have historically evolved through cycles of prohibition and guarded acceptance (Preston, Bernhard, Hunter & Bybee 1998). In Australia, a policy of prohibition gave way to selective liberalisation from the mid-1900s, and became further liberalised over ensuing decades. By the 1990s, market stimulation, expansion and competition had become defining characteristics of Australian gambling policy, albeit with some constraints on industry practices aimed at enhancing consumer protection and harm minimisation (Hing 2010; McMillen 1996). Changing conceptualisations of gambling have accompanied these developments. Early calls for gambling reform were framed in moral arguments, viewing gambling as a vice which undermined the work ethic (Sylvan & Sylvan 1985). In contrast, contemporary advocacy for gambling reform now focuses on its social impacts, most notably those arising from problem gambling (Hing 2002, 2010). Problem gambling has been variously viewed as a failure of character, a vice or sin, and medicalised as a pathology since its inclusion in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders since the 1980s (Blaszczynski 1985; Campbell & Smith 2003; Castellani 2000; Cosgrave 2008; Reith 2003; Rosecrance 1985). By the late 1990s, a public health view of gambling had emerged in several countries, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand, with problem gambling redefined largely according to its harms (Neal, Delfabbro, O’Neil 2005; McMillen 1997). This reconceptualisation of problem gambling extended the focus from individual problem gamblers needing treatment to the broader population who would benefit from prevention, protection and promotion of gambling-related public health (Korn & Shaffer 1999). These developments catalysed rising expectations for RG. Initial emphasis was on responsible provision of gambling (RPG), with gambling operators and regulators pressured to enact structural changes for improved harm minimisation and consumer protection (Hing 2002, 2010).

1.2.1 The emergence of responsible provision of gambling RPG has its origins in public health policy for alcohol consumption (Hing 2009). A public health approach to alcohol service recognises that, both legally and morally, the provider bears some responsibility for some of the harms arising from excessive alcohol consumption (Dickerson 2003). Thus, responsible service of alcohol generally aims to provide an environment that promotes the safe, healthy consumption of alcohol and prevents where possible excessive and potentially harmful consumption (Dickerson 2003; Hawks 1997). Similarly, the introduction of RPG in the late-


Page 9



1990s placed greater social responsibility on gambling operators to provide a gambling environment that promotes safe consumption behaviour (Hing 2002, 2009, 2010; McMillen 1997).1 RPG has been defined as a set of operator policies and practices designed to prevent and reduce potential harms associated with gambling, and incorporating a variety of interventions aimed at promoting consumer protection, awareness and education, and access to treatment (Blaszczynski, Ladouceur & Shaffer 2004). Typical operator practices relate to: Providing information on RG, gambling products available, gambling odds, and problem gambling support services; modifying features of the gambling environment to discourage extended gambling; responsible advertising and promotion; certain limits on financial transactions; organisational positions and employee training for RG; transparent customer complaints mechanisms; measures to prevent gambling by minors; and venue exclusion programs (Dickerson 2003; Hing 2009; Hing, Dickerson & Mackellar 2001). More recent developments have included enhanced player information and support services, self-diagnostic tests, behavioral tracking and feedback, and systems to encourage precommitment to expenditure and time limits (Wood & Griffiths 2015). Early self-regulatory approaches to RPG showed an industry preference for ‘softer’ measures such as signage which has minimal impact on changing behaviour, but lack of commitment to stronger measures such as removing ATMs from gambling rooms which are more likely to reduce gambling revenue (see Hing 2001, 2009 for an account of early RPG measures that were adopted and resisted). However, following the NSW Gambling Inquiry (Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal 1998) and the Productivity Commission Inquiry (1999), the first RPG regulations and codes of practice were introduced. By the time of the first national review, 30 RPG codes of practice had been established in Australia (Hing et al. 2001). Since that time, RPG measures have been widely implemented across the gambling industry, underpinned by legislation and codes of practice (Hing 2010). Nevertheless, there is no body of scientific evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of RPG measures in preventing the incidence or reducing the prevalence of gambling-related harm (Blaszczynski et al. 2011; Disley, Pollitt, Culley & Rubin 2011; Livingstone, Rintoul & Francis 2014), nor that they result in responsible consumption behaviours. More recently, increased emphasis has been shifted to consumers to be responsible gamblers through regulating and restraining their own behaviours.

1.2.2 From responsible provision of gambling to responsible consumption of gambling The term ‘responsible provision of gambling’ was gradually contracted to ‘responsible gambling’ in industry, government and academic discourse, and this latter term is increasingly used to refer to the behaviour of gamblers rather than the practices of gambling operators. This is clear in the message to ‘gamble responsibly’ – a mandated inclusion in industry advertising. Several researchers have criticised this shift in emphasis towards greater consumer responsibility, which has occurred within a wider neoliberal policy context emphasising reduced government regulation of public life and the promotion of competitive enterprise (Reith 2008), and increasing concern with individual responsibility, self-control and lifestyle in new approaches to public health (Bell, Salmon & McNaughton 2011).

1 A public health approach to alcohol provision also focuses on a broader conceptualisation of environments, and includes regulating physical availability, pricing and taxation, altering the drinking context, education and persuasion, regulating alcohol promotion, drink-driving countermeasures, treatment and early intervention (Babor 2010a).


Page 10



One criticism is that consumers are now considered to be both the site of gambling problems and their resolution (Reith 2007, 2008). This conflicts with the earlier medical model of problem gambling as a disease, which implied that affected individuals are not responsible for their condition (Campbell & Smith 2003). However, because recent discourses of consumer responsibility re-introduce the element of agency, they challenge previously accepted assumptions that responsibility can be undermined by addictive products and/or individual vulnerabilities (Reith 2008). In noting the key influence of gambling products, Schull (2012, p. 17) points out that, because addiction results from repeated interaction between subjects and objects, rather than being a property belonging to either one or the other, it becomes clear that ‘objects matter as much as subjects’. She therefore considers that the ‘story of “problem gambling” is not just the story of problem gamblers; it is also the story of problem machines, problem environments, and problem business practices’ (2012, p. 21). Livingstone and Woolley (2007, p. 363) have argued that ‘”responsible gambling” is a carefully structured, if elastic and goalless term, discursively transferring responsibility for industrialized (and normalized) harm production to end users’. This emphasis on RG, and by inference responsible gamblers, then shifts attention to the need for ‘some fine-tuning of the practices of an errant coterie of imprudent consumers’ rather than making the gambling product safe (Livingstone & Woolley 2007, p. 364). Campbell and Smith (2003, p. 143) proffer a similar view, arguing that: The construct of responsible gambling implies a mixture of concerns focused on individual gamblers regarding moral fault, self-control, medical and social causation, and, of course, therapeutic interventions. What is striking about the responsible gambling discourse is that previously disputed issues such as the accessibility of gambling, its formats, and the profit motive underlying its availability are relegated to the background. Thus, this move towards a consumption model has been criticised for diverting attention from supply-side reform. Hancock, Schellinck and Schrans (2008) have therefore advocated for a more interventionist public policy response by both governments and industry to re-regulate the gambling industry and its products, especially electronic gaming machines (EGMs), and reinforce corporate social responsibility and host responsibility obligations on gambling operators. Livingstone and Woolley (2007) also criticise the status quo of ‘business as usual’ and call for governments to act to reduce the production of harm, given that they are the regulators of gambling products. Thus, while RG is typically viewed as a shared responsibility amongst stakeholders including governments, industry and consumers, these arguments reflect substantial unease with the increased shift of these responsibilities towards consumers. Despite the above criticisms, there are now rising demands for gamblers to be responsible, reasoned consumers who ‘control their consumption through behaviour that is rational, selflimiting, and based on informed and prudent decision-making’, with responsible consumption regarded as demonstrating moral wellbeing and contributing to both individual and social health (Reith 2007, 2008, p. 151). As Reith (2008, p. 150) further points out, while governments have RG policies and industry operators have RG programs: … the party who emerges as the main subject of notions of responsibility is the individual gambler. It is with the individual gambler that the tasks of seeking out information, setting limits on the amount of time and money he or she spends playing, making reasoned decisions, and controlling his or her own behaviour ultimately rest. These rising expectations for consumer self-regulation are reflected in the Reno Model of responsible gambling (Blaszczynski et al. 2004). The Reno Model contends that, while the


Page 11



boundaries of responsibility for gambling-related harms among consumers, governments and industry remain blurred, the ultimate decision to gamble resides with the individual and represents a choice. As noted above, this privileging of consumer agency over supply-side practices and regulatory reform has attracted substantial criticism, reflecting the ongoing contested nature of who is responsible for RG. The current study is not driven by a particular stance on this issue, nor does it seek to promote a particular viewpoint. Its focus on responsible consumption of gambling (RCG) should not be interpreted as endorsing or preferencing consumers as carrying most responsibility for RG. Instead, the study takes a pragmatic approach in recognising that RG (as consumption) is now the dominant paradigm driving industry, government and public health measures that aim to prevent or minimise gambling-related harm. Consumers are advised to ‘gamble responsibly’ in community education campaigns and consumer information, as well as in mandated messages accompanying gambling industry advertisements. Despite this advice, there is no consensus on behaviours that might constitute responsible consumption of gambling products, and no consistent guidelines enabling consumers to know if they are gambling responsibly. The current study represents a first step towards addressing these deficiencies. Clarifying what it means to ‘gamble responsibly’ should advance efforts to improve gambling-related public health, while not detracting from efforts to enhance the safe provision of gambling products and services. We also emphasise that, while developing and promoting a validated set of behavioural indicators of RCG can provide much needed consumer guidelines on how to ‘gamble responsibly’, this represents just one behavioural change strategy. The public health literature promotes the use of a broad range to strategies to optimise behavioural change, such as regulation, policy, law, reducing availability, price controls, and restrictions on marketing.

1.3 Research aim The aim of this study was to develop a preliminary set of behavioural indicators of RCG – that is, the first set of commonly understood behavioural markers associated with gambling responsibly. As developed in this study (see Chapter Six), RCG can be defined as: Exercising control and informed choice to ensure that gambling is kept within affordable limits of money and time, is enjoyable, in balance with other activities and responsibilities, and avoids gambling-related harm. It must be stressed that the behavioural indicators of RCG developed in this study are preliminary, and will require validation in future research. 2 Once validated, these indicators can be promoted by public health agencies, help services and gambling operators to encourage RCG and discourage risky play. They can be an invaluable public health research and evaluation tool which can be used: for gamblers’ self-assessment; to estimate the prevalence of RCG; to monitor changes over time and for following public health, policy and industry changes; and assist public health initiatives to target gambling forms, gambling modes and socio-demographic groups displaying low use of specific RCG behaviours. The behavioural indicators might also form part of a multi-component approach to RG that could also include regulating physical availability, pricing and taxation, altering the gambling context, education and persuasion, regulating gambling promotion, and treatment and early intervention, as applied, for example, in the alcohol context (Babor 2010a).

2 Our initial grant application to the VRGF included stages to validate these indicators but these stages were not funded. See Section 6.6 for a suggested approach to validation.


Page 12



1.4 Overview of research stages and report structure Three stages of research were conducted for this study, as detailed in Chapter two. Chapter three presents a comprehensive literature review on responsible provision and consumption of gambling. Chapter four contains a content analysis of gambling-related websites. Chapter five refines the indicators identified from the literature review and content analysis through consultation with experts. Chapter six integrates and discusses the study’s findings and its implications.


Page 13



Chapter two: Approach 2.1 Introduction The study was conducted by researchers at the Centre for Gambling Education and Research, Southern Cross University, over 18 months from October 2014. The research design required a mixed-methods approach to address the aim of the study. Three main stages of research were conducted, with the methods for each stage described below.

2.2 Methods for Stage one: Literature review The authors conducted a comprehensive literature review, both to contextualise the study and to generate a list of RCG behaviours that were subsequently grouped into overarching categories. The output of Stage One (along with Stage Two) formed the basis for the Stage Three consultation with experts.

2.2.1 Systematic literature search Both systematic and non-systematic search strategies were used to identify relevant literature. First, the following online databases were systematically searched: Cochrane Library, EconLit, Emerald, Informit, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and Wiley Online Library. All databases were searched using combinations of the following search terms: responsibl*, gambl*, self control, self limit*, self moderat*, self help, self regulat*, harm minimis*, harm reduc*, comsumption and protect*. Truncations were used to allow for variations, such that words beginning with the root were included in the search. In addition, websites were searched for additional grey literature which may not have been included in the original database search. No date range was applied to the search in order to be as comprehensive as possible. As the authors spoke English, only English papers were reviewed.

Study selection Due to the limited literature directly on the topic, the sample was not restricted only to empirical studies of RG but also included reports, commentaries and reviews. Papers were included which provided information on both responsible provision and consumption of gambling. As well as academic papers, government reports were included because much of the research into RPG has been commissioned by governments. No date restriction was applied to the sample as the concept of RG is relatively recent. In addition, the selected papers were not restricted as applying to a certain sample of the gambling population, but included non-problem, at-risk and problem/pathological gamblers.

Eligibility Criteria Studies were included if they met the following criteria: 

Were peer reviewed journal articles, grey literature or industry/government reports.



Provided or commented on a definition of RG.



Provided information about RPG, including gambling operator strategies.



Provided information about RCG, including strategies and behaviours for gamblers.


Page 14



Data extraction The titles and abstracts of the systematically searched literature were initially assessed against the eligibility criteria for relevance to the topic. When the information provided by the title/abstract was insufficient to decide whether a paper should be included in the final sample, or if the title/abstract was relevant to the project, the full text was retrieved and evaluated. Duplicate publications were identified and removed from the sample. The final sample from the systematic search was reviewed and agreed upon by three researchers. Any related disagreements amongst the researchers were minor and were resolved by discussion; thus we did not compute any coefficients of agreement.

Overview of results Figure 2.1 depicts the systematic search process and its outputs. The initial literature search of the databases produced 6,121 citations for screening. Of these, 2,437 were identified as duplicates and removed, leaving 3,684 publications. Upon screening the titles and abstracts of the papers, 1,849 were rejected as they were not relevant to the topic of gambling. A further 1,128 papers were removed which were related to the topic of gambling but did not provide insight into RG. A total of 533 papers were identified as relating to RG, but did not provide information specifically relating to the responsible provision or consumption of gambling, definitions of RG or behaviours which might comprise RG. Amongst the papers, 73 were selected as being of direct relevance for the purpose of the review. In addition, websites were searched for additional grey literature which may not have been identified by the database search. Twenty-three additional publications were identified as relevant. This produced a final sample of 96 papers from the systematic search.

Figure 1.1 Flowchart of the literature selection process


Page 15



Sample characteristics The final sample of literature from the systematic search was comprised of a total of 96 texts: 53 empirical studies, 12 reports, six reviews, 22 commentaries/proposals, one thesis, one periodical and one handbook. Forty-nine of the publications focused on RPG (51.04 per cent), 26 focused on RCG (27.08 per cent) and 21 publications addressed both RPG and RCG (21.88 per cent). Fiftysix of the publications did not focus on a specific gambling form, but instead discussed the issue of RG generally. Twenty-nine papers focused specifically upon EGMs and video lottery terminals (VLTs), nine papers focused on online gambling, one paper addressed card games, one focussed on lottery, and one paper focussed on off-course betting. The sample of publications was searched for definitions of RG, either provided as commentary by authors or as quantifiable measurements. Of the 96 papers in this sample, six proposed a definition of ‘responsible gambling’, while an additional eight cited definitions from other literature. Three articles provided definitions for ‘harm minimisation/reduction’, two defined ‘responsible gambling features’, and one defined ‘healthy gambling’. One article provided a definition of ‘responsibility’ in general, while another defined ‘gambling in moderation’. The remainder of the publications (n = 70) provided no definition for RG, harm minimisation or related terminology. Thus, 77.78 per cent of the publications relating to RG did not define the concept which they were investigating.

2.2.2 Non-systematic literature search The systematic search identified literature directly focused on RG and enabled the researchers to develop broad categories of RG operator practices and consumer behaviours. A non-systematic search was then conducted of literature relevant to each category, to enable a comprehensive review of key publications to be developed for each practice/behaviour. A non-systematic approach was taken here due to the enormous volume of search terms (and subsequent publications) that would have been needed to cover the breadth of operator and consumer practices in RG. This non-systematic review comprised reviews for eight categories of operator practices and nine categories of consumption behaviours, as shown in Table 2.1. These categories were fine-tuned by the research team in several iterations. Categories of operator practices were aligned with those in Victorian Responsible Gambling Codes of Conduct, while the categories of consumption behaviours were those that appeared to best reflect logical groupings of behaviours. Alternative categorisations are, of course, possible. Table 2.1. Categories of responsible gambling operator practices and consumption behaviours in the literature review Categories of RPG practices Responsible gambling information Gambling product information Pre-commitment strategies Interaction with customers Minors Gambling environment Financial transactions Advertising/promotions


Categories of RCG behaviours Managing overall finances Monetary limits on gambling Time restrictions on gambling Taking an informed approach to gambling Avoiding opportunities to gamble Reasons/motivations for gambling Using social support Using support services Engaging in other activities

Page 16



2.3 Methods for Stage two: Content analysis of websites The literature review was supplemented with a content analysis of gambling-related websites. The content analysis was undertaken because information obtained in the literature review is not targeted or readily available to gambling consumers. Instead, consumer information on RG is typically available in a variety of formats and locations, including public health campaigns across a range of media, signage and brochures in gambling venues, pamphlets in gambling help services, and from numerous online sources. This type of information was considered of key relevance to the study because it represents the main guidelines available to consumers on how to ‘gamble responsibly’. The content analysis therefore enabled identification of RCG behaviours additional to those identified in the literature review. The content analysis focused on online content because of its ready accessibility to both consumers and the research team. Additionally, the online content examined often replicated information available in other formats (e.g., workbooks, brochures, etc.). Thus, online content was considered to be the most comprehensive source of RG information for consumers. This stage involved examining the websites of major Australian gambling help services, government agencies and industry operators and conducting a content analysis of their definitions, descriptions and guidelines for RG behaviours. Some prominent international websites were also included. This analysis enabled the research team to distill key principles underpinning RCG and descriptors of RCG behaviours as presented to consumers through these websites. Our approach to the website analysis was a directed content analysis, which is an appropriate method when prior research about a phenomenon exists but is incomplete (Hsiu-Fang & Shannon 2005). The literature review identified numerous RPG practices by gambling operators as well as numerous RCG behaviours which have been documented in the literature. The goal of our directed approach to the content analysis of websites was to extend the conceptual framework of these practices and behaviours by identifying and adding those promoted to consumers through these websites. The categories of practices and behaviours shown in Table 2.1 provided the initial coding categories and the practices and behaviours presented on each website were coded accordingly. No new overarching categories were needed, but numerous practices and behaviours were added to those already gathered through the literature review.

2.3.1 Website selection The websites included in the analysis were selected based on their RCG content. A purposive sampling strategy was pursued with the aim of including sites with the most comprehensive information on RCG, while also ensuring that help service, government and industry operator sites were represented. For inclusion in the study sample, websites were required to provide RCG strategies for consumers, other than information on services which offer formal help such as counselling. Some websites were found to provide in-depth information about RPG (i.e., operator practices); however, as the focus of the content analysis was on consumption behaviours, websites were excluded if there was not also an emphasis on responsible consumption strategies. Thus, the websites examined were deemed to provide comprehensive information on RCG which is easily accessible to the public. Thirty websites were audited, with the sample comprising 25 Australian websites and five international websites (Table 2.2). Although the websites varied in their target populations, with


Page 17



some specific to state jurisdictions and others aimed at national and international audiences, all sites were accessible as online information to those seeking advice and assistance. Six government websites, 10 industry websites and 14 help service websites was analysed for RCG definitions and strategies. Table 2.2. Websites included in the content analysis Operator ACT Gambling and Racing Commission NSW Gambling Help NSW Gambling Help Workbook Problem Gambling ACT Problem Gambling SA Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Australasian Gaming Council Bet 365 Betfair Responsible Gambling Centrebet Country Club Tasmania Crown Melbourne Crown Perth Tabcorp Tatts Tom Waterhouse Amity Community Services Inc Betsafe British Columbia Responsible & Problem Gambling Program Gamble Aware AU Gamble Aware UK Gambling Help Online Gambling Impact Society NSW Help Guide Nebraska Council on Compulsive Gambling Relationships Australia Responsible Gambling Awareness Week Responsible Gambling Council (Ontario) Salvation Army Victorian Aboriginal Community Services Association Ltd (VACSAL)


Date Audited 09.04.2015

Website

01.04.2015 01.04.2015

Government Government

16.04.2015 07.04.2015 24.03.2015

http://gamblinghelp.nsw.gov.au/ http://www.gamblinghelp.nsw.gov.au/wpcontent/uploads/Gambling-HelpWorkbook.pdf http://www.problemgambling.act.gov.au/ http://problemgambling.sa.gov.au/ http://www.responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/

09.04.2015 12.05.2015 15.04.2015 15.04.2015 11.04.2015 24.03.2015 11.04.2015 09.04.2015 24.03.2015 12.05.2015 03.04.2015 16.04.2015 12.05.2015

https://www.austgamingcouncil.org.au/ http://www.bet365.com.au/en/ http://responsiblegambling.betfair.com/ http://centrebet.com/ http://www.countryclubtasmania.com.au/ https://www.crownmelbourne.com.au/ https://www.crownperth.com.au/ http://tabcorp.com.au/ https://tatts.com/ https://www.tomwaterhouse.com/ http://amity.org.au/ http://www.betsafe.com.au/ https://www.bcresponsiblegambling.ca/

Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Help Service Help Service Help Service

12.05.2015 20.04.2015 08.04.2015 03.04.2015

http://www.gambleaware.com.au/ http://www.gambleaware.co.uk/ http://gamblinghelponline.org.au/ http://gisnsw.org.au/

Help Service Help Service Help Service Help Service

01.05.2015 01.05.2015

http://www.helpguide.org/ http://nebraskacouncil.com/

Help Service Help Service

09.04.2015 08.04.2015

http://www.relationships.org.au/ http://www.rgaw.com.au/


20.04.2015

http://www.responsiblegambling.org/

Help Service

01.04.2015 25.03.2015

http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/ http://www.vacsal.org.au/


http://www.gamblingandracing.act.gov.au/

Website Type Government

Government Government Government

Page 18



2.3.2 Website analysis Broad categories of RCG behaviours included in the analysis framework were based on the nine overarching categories of RCG behaviours identified in the literature review (Table 2.1). The literature review also identified numerous separate behaviours associated with each category (e.g., within the category of managing overall finances, one behaviour is to pay bills and buy groceries before gambling). These separate behaviours were included under the relevant category in the analysis framework, and additional behaviours were then added to categories in the framework as they were identified on the websites. Thus, both a deductive and inductive approach was used. Each website was initially manually searched for suggested behaviours which consumers could adopt to gamble responsibly. The text on websites was searched, as well as additional attachments such as pamphlets, flyers and workbooks. Material was included if it provided information to consumers about how to gamble in a ‘responsible’ or ‘healthy’ way, or in a way which minimised harm. Analyses were not only contained to information under the title of ‘Responsible Gambling’, but also included other help strategies, self-help information and ways to ‘control’ gambling which appeared relevant to RCG behaviours. The behaviours extracted from the sites include behaviours for consumers who may or may not have a gambling problem. Thus, while some behaviours may be more applicable to non-problem gamblers, others may be more applicable to at-risk or problem gamblers. It was not always evident however, which of the behaviours applied to which subgroup of gamblers, and in many cases, it may be that behaviours can apply to more than one group. This was also not well distinguished on websites, and for that reason, the behaviours have not been organised according to gambling severity in the analysis (Chapter Four, with detailed findings in Appendix C). One of the researchers conducted the content analysis, and the lead researcher then checked the assignment of newly identified behaviours in the website analysis to the nine categories. All three researchers reviewed the final output. Results are presented in table form in Chapter Four to show similarities and differences between the various websites in their definitions/descriptions of RCG and in the behaviours they suggest consumers adopt in order to gamble responsibly. These outputs, as well as the literature review, informed the development of a preliminary set of behavioural indicators of RCG, which formed the basis of the expert consultation in Stage Three.

2.4 Consultation with gambling experts Consultation with experts in the field was conducted to generate definitions of RCG, its underlying principles, and a set of behavioural indicators of RCG. This consultation took the form of an online survey to gain input from a reasonably large purposive sample from numerous jurisdictions around the world. A purposive sample is a non-probability sampling technique that is most effective when studying a certain domain with knowledgeable experts within. Also called judgment sampling, the technique deliberately chooses key informants who can and will provide the needed information by virtue of their knowledge and experience (Tongco 2007). For the current study, experts in gambling research, policy, treatment and training were considered to have appropriate knowledge and experience to be able to meaningfully contribute to the survey. Industry views were not sought in this stage, as industry perspectives on RCG had already been obtained through the content analysis of gambling websites.


Page 19



2.4.1 Recruitment and sampling Experts in gambling research, policy, treatment and training were identified from two main sources: 

Professional contacts of the research team, including attendees at the (then) most recent major Australian gambling studies conference (National Association for Gambling Studies Conference 2014). Recruitment emails were sent to 173 individuals, comprising 36 Australian researchers, 50 international researchers, 74 individuals working in treatment and training, and 13 individuals working in gambling policy/regulation. Of these, 26 emails bounced and 11 out of office replies were received.



Members of Gambling Issues International (GII), a mailing list forum restricted to professionals who work with gambling issues or problems. Members include clinicians, researchers, educators, public health professionals, community workers, policy makers, and many others, but not members of the public. GII had 677 members at the time our recruitment email was sent to this group. However, bouncebacks are not received when emailing to the group address, so it is not known how many of these emails were actually received.

Two follow-up emails were sent to the invited experts, with the survey running for about one month between 8th November and 10th December 2015. A total of 156 experts commenced the survey. Of these, 49 did not complete the entire survey. Results presented in Chapter Five are taken from the remaining 107 completed surveys (68.6 per cent completion rate). Respondents took between 13 minutes and 37 days to complete the survey, with a median completion time of 52.4 minutes. We are unable to calculate completely accurate response rates given that any bouncebacks from the GII group could not be recorded. However, the most conservative estimate which includes all 677 contacts from this source plus the 147 professional contacts who received the email (173 emails – 26 bouncebacks) is 18.9 per cent for survey commencements (156/824) and 13.0 per cent for survey completions (107/824). All respondents were offered an Amazon gift voucher for US$40 as reimbursement for their time. At the end of the survey, respondents were given a code to e-mail to the research team to claim the voucher. This ensured that their personal details were not stored with their survey responses which remained anonymous.

2.4.2 Refining the responsible gambling behaviours for the expert survey Fifty-seven RCG behaviours were identified from the literature review and 88 additional behaviours were extracted from the content analysis, for a total of 145 behaviours that were initially grouped into nine categories. To reduce respondent burden when answering the expert survey, these were refined and condensed into 61 behaviours grouped into seven categories by removing duplication and overlap. For example, there were numerous items that specifically related to limiting access to cash when gambling, such as “Require two signatures to withdraw money from bank account”, “Have your wages collected by your spouse” and “Have wage paid directly into bank account”. While these are useful suggestions, they are specific examples of ways to set and stick to a limit on monetary expenditure while gambling and therefore unnecessarily specific for the current purposes. Therefore, where possible, we combined very specific items that covered similar topics with each other. Appendix A maps the original 145 behaviours onto these 61 behaviours. Four main types of refinements were made to the items during this mapping exercise:


Page 20





Some items from the literature review and content analysis which were specific to certain forms of gambling (e.g., ‘set limits of bets per EGM spin’) were stated more generally (e.g., ‘set and stick to a limit on your maximum bet size when you gamble’), allowing the statement to be applied to more forms.



Where several items focused on a similar theme, they were reduced and stated more generally. For example, eight items related to reducing access to, placing limits on, or cancelling credit cards. They were summarised into a single item: ‘avoid borrowing money or getting money on credit (including credit cards) to gamble with’.



Three items were not specifically drawn from the literature review and content analysis but were added by the researchers. ‘Understand that gambling for longer makes no difference to your chances of winning’ was added as this is a common gambling fallacy. ‘Avoid gambling to impress or challenge other people’ was added to expand on the types of peer pressure that were partially captured in other items. One further item, ‘ensure that gambling doesn’t dominate your thoughts when you are not gambling’ was added because preoccupation with gambling is a common indicator of problem gambling.



Finally, the researchers used their best judgement in assigning specific behaviours to the seven categories of behaviours. For example, the specific behaviour, ‘verbally announce limits to others’, was assigned to the ‘use help and support if needed’ category, but could instead have been included in the category of ‘ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’ or ‘limiting persistence at gambling’.

Given the subjectivity involved in the above decisions, we acknowledge that other researchers may have refined the 145 initial behaviours into a different final set of items for the expert survey.

2.4.3 Survey instrument The survey (Appendix B) was hosted on the Qualtrics platform. It was split into several sections as follows. All items were developed to suit the need of the research as no relevant existing measures could be found. 

Respondent details. These were: Gender, age, highest educational qualification, main type of work in relation to gambling over the last five years (research, policy/regulation, treatment/counselling, training/education, other - specify), main disciplinary background (open-ended question), type of work organisation (university, other research/consultancy organisation, government department or agency, counselling/treatment agency, other community services agency, hospital, training provider, other - specify), current appointment level (for university staff only: Levels A to E), country of current appointment, country which most of their gambling work has focussed on, and number of years engaged in gamblingrelated work.



Defining RCG. Respondents were asked to provide a definition of RCG in their own words (open-ended question). Then they were asked what they considered the essential goals and objectives of RCG to be (open-ended question). A new page then loaded with 18 possible goals and objectives (yes/no response for each).



Categories of RCG behaviour. Respondents were asked about the importance of seven categories of behaviour in terms of RCG: Ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable, limiting persistence at gambling, understanding gambling, keeping gambling in balance,


Page 21



‘positive’ motivations for gambling, a planned approach to gambling, and use help and support if needed. Response options were ‘not at all important’, ‘mildly important’, ‘moderately important’, ‘very important’ and ‘extremely important’. 

Specific behaviours within the RCG categories. For each of the seven RCG categories, the experts were asked to rate the importance of numerous specific behaviours (from ‘not at all important’ to ‘extremely important’) separately for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers. Respondents were also asked an open-ended question about any other specific behaviours that might be important within that category. Each behavioural category contained between five and 14 specific behaviours.



Additional RCG categories. Once respondents had seen all of the specific behaviours in each of the seven categories, and had been asked if any additional behaviours should be added to each individual category, they were then asked if any other overall categories should be considered. This was an open-ended question.



The concept of RCG. Respondents were asked to consider the average person who adheres to the RCG behaviours specified in the survey. They were asked how likely it was (‘very unlikely’, ‘unlikely’, ‘neither likely nor unlikely’, ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’) that they would experience no gambling-related harm, minor gambling-related harm and major gamblingrelated harm. They were then asked how likely it was that such a person was a non-problem gambler, at-risk gambler and problem gambler. Next they were asked how likely it was that such a person experienced benefits, no effects and detriments for their health and wellbeing from their gambling. The experts then rated their agreement (‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘agree’, ‘strongly agree’) with five statements about RCG. These statements were: ‘I understand what the term “responsible gambling” means’, ‘I support the concept of responsible gambling’, ‘Safe levels of gambling participation are possible’, ‘There is no such thing as responsible gambling’ and ‘”Responsible gambling” is a meaningless term’. They were then asked if they had any comments or concerns about the concept of RCG (open-ended question).



Who should RCG messages and guidelines target? The experts were asked to rate their agreement about whether RCG messages and guidelines should target non-problem, at-risk and/or problem gamblers. They were then asked how receptive (‘not at all receptive’, ‘mildly receptive’, ‘moderately receptive’, ‘very receptive’) they thought non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers are likely to be to the term ‘responsible gambling’. The respondents were also asked about whether they had any comments or concerns about who RCG messages should target.



Promotion of RCG. Respondents were asked their agreement with seven statements about the promotion of RCG and how adequately (‘extremely inadequately’, ‘inadequately’, ‘neither inadequately not adequately’, ‘adequately’ and ‘extremely adequately’) four parties promoted responsible gambling consumption: gambling venues (land-based and online), governments, public health/community education/responsible gambling agencies and gambling help services. Next they were asked how adequately RCG messages were promoted for each of eight types of gambling (e.g. electronic gaming machines, race betting), relative to their risks. Respondents had the opportunity to add any comments or concerns they had about the promotion of RCG messages and behaviours.



Terminology. Respondents were asked which of six possible terms was the best terminology for RCG (e.g. responsible gambling, low risk gambling) and were also provided the


Page 22



opportunity to suggest their own term. They were then asked why they had selected that term (open-ended question). 

Who is responsible? Participants were asked ‘whose responsibility is it to ensure that consumers gamble responsibly?’ and to allocate percentages to each of eight parties, including: Gamblers, family and friends of gamblers, gambling operators, governments, the broader community, public health/community education agencies, gambling help services and other (specify). They were then asked whether the level of responsibility currently placed on gamblers, gambling operators and governments was too little, about right, or too much. Space was provided for any other comments or concerns about who is responsible for ensuring that consumers gamble responsibly (open-ended question).



RG limits. The experts were asked whether the four ‘low risk limits’ developed by Currie, Hodgins, Wang, el-Guebaly & Wynne (2008a) were conservative or liberal (1 = ‘very conservative’, 5 = ‘just right’, 9 = ‘very liberal), and also to rate the importance of each of these four limits (‘not at all important’, ‘mildly important’, ‘moderately important’, ‘very important’). They were then asked for any other comments or concerns about responsible gambling/low risk gambling limits (open-ended question).



Potential concerns with RG. The experts were asked to rate their agreement with 12 concerns about RG that have been raised in the literature. These included statements such as ‘the term “responsible gambling” is discouraging for people having difficulties controlling their gambling’ and ‘Problem gamblers may justify continuing to gamble if they adhere to responsible gambling guidelines’. They were then asked if they had any additional comments or concerns about RG guidelines (open-ended question).



Revisiting their definitions of RCG. After having answered these questions, respondents were shown their original definition of RCG and the goals and objectives they had identified as underpinning RCG. They were asked if they wanted to change their original answers in any way (open-ended questions).

2.4.4 Participants The 107 expert respondents were aged between 23 and 73 (M = 50.3, SD = 11.5, median = 50.0) and most were female (57.0 per cent). Three quarters (74.8 per cent) had postgraduate qualifications, with a further 15.9 per cent having undergraduate qualifications. The respondents most commonly worked in research (41.1 per cent), treatment/counselling (23.4 per cent) or training/education (19.6 per cent), with 7.5 per cent working in policy or regulation and 8.4 per cent indicating ‘other’. Those who responded ‘other’ were asked to give further details and all worked in some form of gambling-related role or were retired from such a role. When asked which type of organisation they worked in, a university was the most common response (39.3 per cent), followed by counselling/treatment agency (21.5 per cent), other community services agency (12.1 per cent) and government department or agency (10.3 per cent). Those working in universities were asked their current appointment level. Of the 42 respondents, 14 (33.3 per cent) were Level E, 6 (14.3 per cent) were Level D, 12 (28.6 per cent) Level C, 5 (11.9 per cent) Level B and 5 (11.9 per cent) Level A. Respondents were also asked in which country their current appointment was, as well as which country most of their gambling work has focussed on. Australia was the most common response (46.7 per cent and 48.6 per cent respectively), followed by Canada (22.4 per cent for both


Page 23



questions) and the United States (16.8 per cent and 15.9 per cent respectively). Responses were also received from: Brazil, Finland, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Respondents had been engaged in gambling-related work for between one and 35 years (M = 13.3, SD = 7.8, median = 14.0).

2.4.5 Data analysis Results are presented in Chapter Five and Appendix D. Descriptive statistics are reported for all questions. For yes/no answer questions, the percentage of respondents who endorsed each item is reported. For Likert scale answers, means (and standard deviations) are reported, with the scale anchors presented under the table or figure. As noted above, the experts varied in background, jurisdiction, experience and various other variables. Comparisons between different types of experts were made for all response variables. There were very few significant differences, and those that were significant had very small effect sizes. Thus, we were satisfied that different types of experts tended to have similar opinions for most questions in the survey. As almost all of these comparisons were not statistically significant, and as this is not the aim of this section of the report, we have not presented these comparisons. Repeated measures analyses were used to compare the ratings on related items from the experts. For example, the mean reported importance of each category of RCG behaviours, as well as between the overall importance for each behaviour within a category, were compared using repeated measures ANOVA (with pairwise comparisons) to determine statistically significant differences between the categories in terms of importance. Comparisons were also made between the relative importance of each behaviour for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers. For categorical items (e.g. yes/no endorsement of each item), McNemar tests were used. All comparisons were conducted using an alpha of .05 unless stated otherwise. As numerous analyses were conducted, statistical results are not reported in the text for ease of reading and are instead reported in Appendix D.


Page 24



Chapter three: Literature review 3.1 Introduction This chapter presents the literature review conducted to inform a preliminary set of behavioural indicators of responsible consumption of gambling (RCG). Literature pertaining to responsible provision of gambling (RPG) is firstly reviewed, including definitions, aims and principles, and operator practices. This literature was considered relevant to RCG because operator practices determine the situational characteristics of the environment in which gambling is consumed. In some instances, operator practices can enable or prevent certain RCG behaviours, such as use of operator pre-commitment systems to set monetary or time limits on gambling. An understanding of operator RPG practices can therefore enhance an understanding of RCG behaviours. The second half of this chapter focuses on RCG. Definitions as found in the literature are firstly discussed, followed by an overview of specific studies conducted into RCG behaviours and establishing safe gambling limits. Practices used to self-regulate gambling behaviour are then reviewed in relation to the extant literature. Implications for informing the development of a set of behavioural indicators of RCG are noted throughout the chapter, and drawn together in the chapter’s conclusion. The literature review is structured according to the following themes: Responsible provision of gambling:



Definitions of responsible provision of gambling



Aims and principles underpinning responsible provision of gambling



Responsible provision of gambling practices

Responsible gambling consumption:



Definitions of responsible consumption of gambling



Specific studies into responsible gambling behaviours



Measuring responsible consumption of gambling



Responsible gambling consumption behaviours

3.2 Responsible provision of gambling 3.2.1 Definitions of responsible provision of gambling The literature review revealed substantial ambiguity around the term ‘responsible gambling’ (RG), with several authors commenting on this conceptual confusion (Allen Consulting Group 2010; Blaszczynski et al. 2011; Dickson-Gillespie, Rugle, Rosenthal & Fong 2008; Korn & Shaffer 1999; Wood & Griffiths 2015). Definitions of RG referred to either operator practices or to gambling consumption, depending on the focus of the paper. Definitions of RPG are discussed in this section, while those relating to RCG are discussed in Section 3.3.


Page 25



In relation to RPG, an early definition noted that RG is generally used to refer to a collection of operator practices that aim to reduce harm (Dickerson 1998). Drawing on central concepts underpinning corporate social performance, Hing (2003a, p. 38) developed a more theoreticallybased definition of RPG as: … the conduct of gambling in a manner that meets key stakeholder expectations for socially responsible principles, socially responsive processes and socially desirable outcomes in managing the corporate social impacts of gambling. This definition, she explains, clarifies the aim of RPG as managing the gambling operator's social impacts, and that key stakeholders are ultimately the judge of its corporate social responsibility in relation to gambling. In conjunction with their Reno Model, Blaszczynski et al. (2004, p. 308) developed a more applied definition of RG, which was cited by four other papers in the systematic review: Responsible gambling refers to policies and practices designed to prevent and reduce potential harms associated with gambling; these policies and practices often incorporate a diverse range of interventions designed to promote consumer protection, community/consumer awareness and education, and access to efficacious treatment. The Responsible Gambling Advocacy Centre commissioned the Allen Consulting Group (2010) to explore the definition and scope of the term ‘responsible gambling’, noting that it is a broad concept used in a wide variety of contexts and that there is no universally accepted definition. They identified four possible perspectives on RG as: minimising the harm caused by problem gambling; the prevention and reduction of problem gambling; educating consumers and ensuring industry delivers gambling in beneficial ways; and strategies to reduce gambling-related harm and increase gambling-related benefits across society. Although these perspectives appear to have some overlap, the authors noted that they emphasise, respectively, a widening circle of both interested and responsible stakeholders and of targets of RG measures (from problem gamblers to at-risk gamblers to all gamblers to the whole community).

3.2.2 Aims and principles underpinning responsible provision of gambling Several publications described the aims and general principles of RPG. The most comprehensive and, arguably, influential of these are summarised here. Dickerson (2003, not paginated) notes that ‘consumer protection, community/consumer awareness and education, harm minimisation and treatment have all been included within the frame of reference of “responsible gambling”’. His research revealed that impaired control over time and money spent during gambling sessions is a common experience amongst regular gamblers on continuous gambling forms, and an integral part of the enjoyment of gambling. Thus, expecting gamblers to be able to gamble responsibly by continually making controlled, informed, rational decisions during these sessions is ill-founded. He therefore advocated that the point of sale be removed from the addictive process inherent in the gambling sequence. By using pre-commitment, the aim of RPG therefore becomes consumer protection (for all gamblers), rather than prevention or minimisation of impaired control over gambling, or expecting that informing and educating gamblers are sufficient to ensure safe gambling consumption.


Page 26



Informed choice is central to other influential conceptualisations of RPG. A seminal publication outlining a science-based framework for RG, the Reno Model (Blaszczynski et al. 2004), noted that from an industry perspective, the primary long-term objective of a RG framework is to prevent and reduce harm associated with gambling in general, and excessive gambling behaviours in particular. The framework’s emphasis on harm prevention proposes targeting at-risk gamblers with prevention measures that help to protect people from increased risks. Its emphasis on harm reduction proposes targeting gamblers who have already developed problems by informing them about sources of treatment. While the Reno Model promotes a collaborative approach to RG that includes gambling operators, health and welfare providers, interested community groups, consumers and governments, an underlying assumption is that the ultimate decision to gamble resides with the individual and represents a choice. Thus, two key principles underlying RG, according to the Reno Model, are personal responsibility and informed choice. The gambling industry therefore has a responsibility to provide minimum core information required for informed decision-making (Blaszczynski et al. 2004). A later publication involving three of the same authors (Blaszczynski, Ladouceur, Nower & Shaffer 2008) emphasised the obligation of gambling operators to fully inform individuals of the potential risks, foreseeable consequences and implications of their actions, and to not mislead, exploit or take advantage of gamblers. It is then the personal responsibility of individuals to ensure that they are fully informed and to make appropriate choices based on their preferences, circumstances, and financial and social limits. Informed choice, the authors explain, refers to ‘a reasoned decision made by an individual within the context of having understood the necessary information in the absence of coercion, influence or inducement’ (Blaszczynski et al. 2008, p. 107). While acknowledging that research has yet to determine the amount, type, and form of information delivery necessary to optimise informed choice in gambling, the authors advocate the provision of information that 1) warns of potential risks and harms associated with gambling, 2) informs about the operations and characteristics of games, probabilities of winning, and the role of chance vs skill, 3) fosters RG practices, and 4) assists gamblers to monitor time and money spent on gambling. Later work by Blaszczynski and colleagues (2011) clarified the responsibilities of key stakeholders under their advocated tripartite model of RG programs. These were for governments to legislate to establish the nature and extent of gambling, to set requirements for maximising consumer protection, and to monitor compliance; for industry to avoid misleading claims and exploitative practices, omitting or disguising relevant information, developing products designed to foster excessive gambling, or targeting vulnerable subpopulations; and for individuals to understand the nature and risks associated with the gambling products they consume. The authors proposed 10 minimal essential components to operationalise these responsibilities that collectively aim to educate individuals about the nature and risks of gambling, encourage individuals to gamble within affordable limits, and provide adequate information to enable all gamblers to make informed decisions about their gambling. In summary, key principles underpinning RPG have included the provision by governments and industry of measures aimed at harm reduction, harm prevention, harm minimisation and consumer protection, through practices that promote rational decision-making, gambling within affordable limits, informed choice, and personal responsibility by gamblers. 3

3 Common to many of the discussions around the concept of “responsible gambling” is the notion of harm reduction and minimisation. Harm reduction and RG were at times found to be used interchangeably (e.g. Walker, Litvin, Sobel & St-


Page 27



3.2.3 Responsible provision of gambling practices The literature identified in the systematic review covered 55 RG practices for gambling operators. These include practices already implemented in gambling venues, those being trialled, and potential practices suggested by researchers, their study participants and other stakeholders. The 55 RG practices are grouped into the eight categories in Table 3.1. These categories were selected to align with those in the Victorian Responsible Gambling Codes of Conduct. However, the research literature was not inclusive of all operator RG practices in these Codes. Specifically, having a staff gambling policy, venue liaison with problem gambling support services, and having a customer complaints policy are areas in the Victorian Codes that were not mentioned in the research literature reviewed. Table 3.1 lists the various practices which the research literature has focused on. The related literature for each category is reviewed below, and implications for identifying behaviours indicative of RCG are identified where relevant. Table 3.1. List of responsible provision of gambling practices Category

Practices

Responsible gambling information

            

Signage and information about support services for problem gambling. RG information accompanying membership renewal. Free RG seminars. Multi-lingual signage. Educational videos. Brochures available with help and treatment information. Providing RG education programs. Prominent messages on the front of lottery tickets in larger font. Warning signs/messages on EGMs. Smart cards to provide information about a gambling session. Helpline number scrolling on the scanner when players check lottery tickets. Provision of personal behavioural gambling information. Self-assessment tests.

Gambling product information Precommitment strategies

 

Provide clear information about EGM prizes and pay-back percentages. Publish average payouts of EGMs.

   

Pre-commit to time limits on EGMs. Pre-commit to monetary limits on EGMs. Pop up reminders to adhere to pre-set limits. Jackpot expiry (players no longer eligible for jackpot prize after fixed amount of play). Use of smart cards to set time and money limits. Limits as to how much can be deposited into online gambling accounts.

 

Pierre 2014), while some papers exclusively used one term or the other (e.g. Cantinotti & Ladouceur 2008). Harm prevention has been described as preventing the incidence of new cases of gambling-related harm and disorder, whereas harm minimisation and harm reduction are directed towards assisting gamblers who already have a gambling problem (Blaszczynski et al. 2004). Cantinotti & Ladouceur (2008) clarify that the aim of harm reduction is essentially to reduce negative consequences of gambling, without necessarily requiring a reduction in the gambling behaviour itself. They also identify that many gambling-related interventions, specifically those related to EGM features, do not fall within the harm reduction framework, as they promote a reduction in gambling behaviour, e.g. RG strategies which promote setting limits and reductions in play.


Page 28





Maximum loss limits per week.

Interaction with customers

      

Staff interventions with possible problem gamblers. Self-exclusion programs available. Train staff to effectively identify self-excluders who have breached contract. Disallow winnings from self-excluded gamblers. Fine for breaching self-exclusion contract. Mandatory counselling for self-excluders. Follow up self-excluders at risky time points.

Minors

 

Restricted access by minors. Gambling venues not to be located near schools, playgrounds or shopping centres.

Gambling environment

        

Restrict alcohol sales. Reduction of venue opening hours. Prohibit smoking in gambling venues. Decrease speed of play. EGMs required to display the time. Additional clocks. Brighter lighting. Better segregation of gambling areas in clubs. Reduce sound effects of EGMs.

Financial transactions

            

Removal/restricted access to ATMs. Accept only non-credit based payments. EGMs to accept only lower denomination notes. Paying wins over a certain amount by cheque. Not cashing cheques over a certain amount. Maximum spend on lottery tickets at one given store. Limits as to how much can be withdrawn from ATM. ‘Demo Mode’ on EGMs allowing play without money. Charity donation feature on EGMs. Reduce EGM maximum bet size. Cash displays of gambling balance. Fewer delays in receiving payouts from EGMs. No payment of large winnings by any method which can be instantly re-gambled.

Advertising/ promotions

 

Avoidance of misleading promotions. Avoid direct marketing to youth and self-excluded people.

Responsible gambling information and product information These categories encompass operator practices aimed at enabling individuals to make informed decisions about their gambling. Commonly utilised practices include: Signage and brochures in gambling venues and information on operator websites which inform gamblers about responsible play; warning messages about gambling-related risks and problem gambling; information about gambling support services; product information such as odds of winning; and (less frequently) personalised gambling information (Blaszczynski et al. 2011; Delfabbro & King 2012; Monaghan & Blaszczynski 2009, 2010; Parke, Harris, Parke, Rigbye & Blaszczynski 2014a; Wohl, Santesso & Harrigan 2013). In developing a set of principles for RG, Blaszczynski et al. (2011) note that gamblers should, at a minimum, receive information and education about: (1) the dangers of excessive gambling and how to avoid them; (2) resources for help-seeking; (3) how games really work including publishing average payout rates per EGM; and (4) common misconceptions that encourage false beliefs about the probabilities of winning. To guarantee informed choice, Blaszczynski and colleagues (2004) emphasise that the probabilities of winning and the payout schedules of gambling machines should be openly provided. Parke et al. (2014a, p. 7) explain that the value of this type of information is to ‘enhance informed choice, not only in the decision to


Page 29



partake in gambling itself, but to also enable and promote informed choice during the process of gambling’. Some studies have investigated whether venue patrons notice this information. Hing (2004 2005) found that between 67 per cent and 86 per cent of a sample of 954 NSW club patrons had noticed signage about the risks of gambling, the venue’s RG policy, the gambling helpline, problem gambling, and the chances of winning a major EGM prize. In a study of older Queenslanders however, only one-fifth to one-quarter of gamblers had noticed signage about the venue’s RG mission and the odds of winning, although awareness of signs about gambling help services was much higher (60 per cent) (Boreham, Laffan, Johnston, Southwell & Tighe 2006). Another study found that 50 per cent of 300 EGM players reported having noticed signage displayed on EGMs related to the chance of winning (Blaszczynski, Gainsbury & Karlov 2014). In research designed to test the use of RG features introduced on a new EGM, only 22 per cent of players noticed the animated RG messages to play within affordable limits, with no significant difference by risk group (Blaszczynski et al. 2014). A Canadian study found that almost all participants surveyed were unaware of RG messages provided on the back of lottery tickets (Responsible Gambling Council 2012). Variations in awareness of RG information found in these studies are most likely due to different samples, and also the varying provision and prominence of this information in different venues, jurisdictions and for the different forms of gambling. While evidence suggests that many gamblers are aware of at least some types of RG information, there is less support for its efficacy in influencing gambling behaviour. Research participants have consistently reported that RG signage and information are unlikely to prompt behavioural change (Blaszczynski et al. 2014; Hing 2004, 2005; Williams, West & Simpson 2012). In Blaszczynski et al.’s study (2014), only 16.2 per cent of respondents considered signage displaying information about the chances of winning on an EGM to be effective. When asked about the animated RG messages advocating playing within affordable limits, only 14.7 per cent anticipated that the messages would make a positive difference to their gambling behaviour, 7 per cent reported that they made them stop and think, and 4.2 per cent reported that they influenced their actual gambling behaviour. Hing (2004 2005) also found low anticipated effectiveness of signage, which was rated by the sampled NSW club patrons as the least effective of all RG measures introduced by clubs at that time. Reasons articulated by patrons included that people generally disregard signs, the signs are non-confrontational, too familiar and easily ignored, and because problem gambling is an addiction such that no amount of signage will make a difference (Hing 2005). Williams et al. (2012) maintain that awareness initiatives appear to have a very limited impact if people are not explicitly asked to attend to the information or have no intrinsic interest in it. Little research has examined the actual effectiveness of this type of mass RG information in changing gambling behaviour. In an experimental study, Ladouceur and Sevigny (2003) assigned participants to three alternative conditions on VLTs: messages reminding players about the notion of chance and illusion of control displayed every 15 trials, a message containing just the word ‘break’ every 15 trials, and no interruption. They found that messages influenced participants to play fewer games, but that the ‘break’ condition had the same effect, indicating that it may have been the interruption rather than the message which was significant in changing behaviour. Boutin, Tremblay and Ladouceur (2009) assessed the impact of a visit to a RG information centre located within a Montreal casino on visitors’ perceptions about randomness and on their subsequent gambling behaviour. While visitors had reduced erroneous gambling cognitions after the visit, there was no change in their subsequent gambling behaviour or use of RG strategies. Williams et al. (2012), in a review of prevention measures for problem gambling, found limited and mixed evidence that information aiming to improve statistical understanding about gambling, such as about randomness, odds and erroneous cognitions, brings about behavioural change. Given these


Page 30



criticisms and shortcomings, it appears that the provision of information is insufficient to generate behaviour change. Evidence is needed to demonstrate that informed choice alone is an effective responsible gambling consumption strategy. Also discussed in the research literature has been the provision of personalised information to summarise an individual’s wins/losses and time played per session and allow for pre-commitment (Ariyabuddhiphongs 2011; Bernhard, Lucas, Jang & Kim 2008; Blaszczynski et al. 2011; Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW 2004; Parke, Rigbye & Parke 2008; Parke et al. 2014a; Responsible Gambling Council 2010). A trial found that personalised feedback was received positively by participants, who were found to be gambling less money than control participants at three-month follow-up (Cunningham, Hodgins, Toneatto, Rai & Cordingley 2009). Self-assessment tools for problem gambling have also been identified as a RG feature, and are provided by some online gambling websites. Patrons may be more willing to use this RG feature than others that are more restrictive, such as limit-setting (Gainsbury, Parke & Suhonen 2013; Responsible Gambling Council 2010). One survey indicated that 40 per cent of clients of one online gambling website had taken a self-diagnostic test online (Griffiths, Wood & Parke 2009). However, research is needed to ascertain whether use of self-assessment tools bring about behaviour change in gambling. Research participants have suggested various improvements to the provision of RG information, including larger, more confrontational and prominent signs, messages on EGM screens, changing signs more frequently, and messages in a range of formats and media (Blaszczynski et al. 2014; Hing 2004, 2005; Responsible Gambling Council 2012). Pop-up messages are recalled more than static messages, and pop-up messages that promote self-appraisal and self-regulatory skills have a greater impact on thoughts and behaviours both within-session and in subsequent EGM play (Monaghan 2008 2009; Monaghan & Blaszczynski 2010). Other researchers have recognised that different types of gamblers may benefit from different types of RG information, with the Responsible Gambling Council (2010) proposing varying informational programs for casual, frequent and intensive gamblers. Provision of personal behavioural gambling information and game transparency information (about how games operate) have also been advocated (Parke, et al. 2004a). Lucar, Weibe and Philander (2013), in a study of online gambling websites, concluded that RG information that elicits self-reflection, such as player history reports, RG and problem gambling information, pop-up messaging, and normative feedback, has potential to help consumers reduce excessive gambling if used in conjunction with monetary gambling limits. Overall, the literature emphasises that informed decision-making is a key aim of providing RG information to help overcome decision-making deficiencies that commonly occur during gambling (Parke et al. 2004a), although the optimal format of this information is uncertain. This suggests that RCG might also be enhanced when gamblers understand the risks of gambling and how to mitigate them, how gambling works including the odds of winning, the importance of gambling within affordable limits, and where to get gambling help if needed. However, empirical evidence that RG information results in gamblers obtaining, retaining and applying this knowledge is scant and drug and alcohol research has found that information and education strategies have no or short-lived effects on behaviour change (Babor 2010a, 2010b). Further, contrary expert views on the efficacy of RG information have been conveyed. For example, Williams et al. (2012, p. 22) contend that: While knowledge is, in most instances, a necessary antecedent to changing or preventing harmful behaviour, it is seldom sufficient on its own (e.g., Stacy, Bentler & Flay 1994; Williams & Gloster 1999). Accordingly, prevention frameworks that rely heavily on providing gamblers with ‘informed choices’ (e.g., Blaszczynski, Ladouceur & Shaffer 2004;


Page 31



Blaszczynski, Ladouceur, Nower & Shaffer 2005; Blaszczynski et al. 2011) are likely to have limited preventive effect.

Pre-commitment strategies Pre-commitment has received more research attention than most other RG provisions. Precommitment has been defined as a system that enables gamblers to set money and time limits on expenditures prior to the commencement of a session of play (Ladouceur, Blaszczynski & Lalande 2012). It provides a mechanism for improving consumer protection and informed consent about gambling, particularly in relation to EGMs, as players report high levels of impaired control during gambling sessions (Dickerson 2003; Ly 2011; Productivity Commission 2010). Measures aiming to facilitate pre-commitment have mostly been restricted to EGMs (using card-based technology) and online gambling (as it allows player tracking). Whether pre-commitment systems should be mandatory or voluntary has been debated, and the major deficiencies inherent in a voluntary precommitment system noted, as players may not willingly opt in or may not select affordable limits (Hare 2010; Ladouceur et al. 2012; Parke et al. 2008; Productivity Commission 2010). Researchers, consumers and some policy advisors have generally supported the RG utility of gambler pre-commitment to time and monetary limits (Ariyabuddhiphongs 2011, 2013; Hing 2005; Productivity Commission 2010). However, Ladouceur et al. (2012) found that methodological limitations severely limit the available empirical evidence for its efficacy (Broda et al. 2008; Bernhard, Lucas & Dongsuk 2006; Government of South Australia 2010a 2010b; Lalande & Ladouceur 2011; Maddern 2004; McDonnell-Phillips 2006; Nelson et al. 2008; Omnifacts Bristol Research 2005, 2007; Pran & Ukklelberg 2010; Schellinck & Schrans 1998; Schottler Consulting 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b; Wohl et al. 2008). In summarising findings from these empirical studies, Ladouceur et al. (2012) note that gamblers are positively predisposed to the concept of pre-commitment and about 50 per cent spend less when using the system, although about 40 per cent spend more. About 70 per cent of gamblers do not use limit-setting when available, and their use is restricted to monetary limits with virtually no use of time limits. Where limit-setting functions are used, gamblers generally favour self-selected limits over enforced limits (Bernhard et al. 2008; Gainsbury et al. 2013; Hare 2010), and monetary limits over time limits (Bernhard et al. 2008; Ladouceur & Sevigny 2009; Omnifacts Bristol Research 2007). For example, 46 per cent of EGM players in one survey reported they would set monetary limits, while 29 per cent reported they would set time limits, with these proportions being 69 per cent and 48 per cent respectively amongst problem gamblers (Department of Justice and Attorney General 2012). Thus, there is some evidence that problem gamblers are more inclined to use limit setting features than are recreational gamblers. Setting limits has had beneficial effects for some online gamblers. Setting time and monetary limits resulted in intense gamblers on the Win2day website changing their behaviour in a positive way, with monetary limits having the most significant effect on subsequent spending amongst casino and lottery gamblers, and time limits having most effect on playing duration of poker gamblers (Auer & Griffiths 2013). Among users of an online RG tool (Playscan), 52 per cent reported that it was useful and that its most useful feature was limit setting (70 per cent), with 56 per cent setting a spending limit (Griffiths et al. 2009). Users of deposit limits on one online gambling site (bwin) reduced their overall gambling activity on the site, but not necessarily the amount wagered per bet (Nelson et al. 2008). Another study found increased average bet sizes, although fewer average bets per day, amongst users of one website which provided mandatory limit-setting and automated notifications when limits are exceeded (Broda et al. 2008). However, lack of knowledge about these users’ gambling on other websites limits conclusions that can be drawn. Lucar et al. (2013)


Page 32



also note that limit-setting functions are underutilised because they are seldom promoted on gambling websites. Additional strategies have been suggested to support limit-setting. One stream of research has investigated reminders for limit setting and adherence. An experimental study with university students found that those who were prompted to set a time limit were more likely to do so, and to gamble for less time, than those who were not prompted (Kim, Wohl, Stewart, Sztainert & Gainsbury 2014). Adherence to time limits was further improved when participants watched an animation-based video on how slot machines function, setting financial limits, and strategies to avoid problems (Wohl, Christie, Matheson & Anisman 2010) or when they were exposed to pop-up reminders that their pre-set limit had been reached (Wohl, Gainsbury, Stewart & Sztainert 2013). A randomised controlled experiment also found that participants who received a monetary limit popup reminder were significantly more likely to adhere to self-proclaimed monetary limits than participants who did not receive a reminder (Stewart & Wohl 2013). Another form of limit, jackpot expiry has been suggested (Rockloff, Donaldson & Browne 2014). Although not implemented to date, this would involve EGM gamblers no longer being eligible for a jackpot prize after a fixed amount of play. When tested, bet speed was significantly slowed by jackpot expiry and player losses significantly reduced. Parke, Harris, Parke, Rigbye and Blaszczynski (2014b) note that research consistently indicates that gamblers frequently gamble more than intended, reflecting a degree of impaired control, with possible reasons being a desire to prolong states of dissociation or excitement, need for emotional escape, impulsively choosing short-term over long-term rewards, erroneous gambling beliefs, and the pressure to chase losses. Thus, while the efficacy of pre-commitment systems has yet to be rigorously demonstrated, its aim to enhance informed decision-making under conditions free from the arousal and dissociation commonly experienced during gambling suggests that setting and adhering to affordable limits is an important element of RCG.

The gambling environment RG codes typically contain several practices to provide a safe gambling environment. The literature has documented some of these and suggested further provisions. These have included restriction of alcohol sales (Delfabbro & King 2012; Blaszczynski et al. 2011) so that gamblingrelated decisions are not impaired by the effects of intoxication, and prohibition of smoking (British Columbia Provincial Health Officer 2013) which may lead to smokers taking breaks from gambling (as well as obvious public health benefits). Additional clocks in venues, as well as on EGMs, along with brighter lighting, have also been suggested to assist player awareness of the passage of time (Boreham et al. 2006; Hing 2004; 2005; Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW 2004). Alarm clocks on EGMs have been trialled as time setting reminders but had little take-up, and few respondents anticipated that this feature would change their EGM gambling behaviour (Blaszczynski et al. 2014). Better segregation of gambling areas in venues has also been recommended (Boreham et al. 2006; Hing 2005), presumably to limit exposure to gambling. Reduction of venue opening hours has been proposed to facilitate RCG (Gainsbury, Blankers, Wilkinson, Schelleman-Pffermans & Cousijn 2014; Hing 2005), as many high risk individuals gamble on EGMs between midnight and 6am (Savage & Murray 2011), and because shutdowns mandate a break in play (Tuffin & Parr 2008). Breaks in play interrupt states of dissociation which facilitate losing track of time and money spent while gambling (Parke et al. 2014b). When surveyed close to shutdown time, 71 per cent of gamblers indicated that they would go home when EGMs were shut down, 13 per cent that they would stay at the venue, and 9 per cent that they would continue to gamble elsewhere; and the majority of respondents also supported reduced opening


Page 33



hours (Tuffin & Parr 2008). Parke et al. (2014b) note that closing times effectively reduce venue revenues by 3–10 per cent and by 18 per cent in self-reported expenditure. However, other research suggests that venue closing times have little impact, mainly due to lack of universal shutdown times which means that people can gamble elsewhere (McMillen & Pitt 2005; Tuffin & Parr 2008). Reducing opening hours in the online gambling environment is theoretically possible where gambling sites are licensed domestically, but such a move would likely reduce the appeal of Australian-licensed gambling websites and drive customers to offshore sites instead. In summary, these RPG practices aim to promote informed decision-making that is not impaired by alcohol, to encourage breaks in play, and to help gamblers to stay within their time limits. These behaviours should therefore be considered as some which could underpin RCG.

Financial transactions Both researchers and consumers have supported the removal of ATMs from venues and/or gambling rooms, and the lowering of withdrawal limits (Blaszczynski et al. 2011; Boreham et al. 2006; Dickerson 2003; Hing 2004, 2005; McMillen, Marshall & Murphy 2004; Savage & Murray 2011). Problem and regular gamblers use ATMs located in gambling venues more frequently than do other gamblers, and convenient access to venue ATMs is reported to be a significant factor in the development and persistence of gambling problems (McMillen et al. 2004). Thomas, Pfiefer, Moore, Meyer, Yap and Armstrong (2013) have conducted the most rigorous research to date, comparing gambling behaviour before and after the removal of ATMs from Victorian gambling venues. They found ATM removal to be an effective harm minimisation measure, with higher risk gamblers spending less time and money on EGMs, reporting higher self-control over spending, and reporting reductions in overspending and severity of problem gambling symptoms. They also concluded that ATM removal is an effective consumer protection measure, with gambling time and expenditure decreasing amongst lower risk gamblers, who also reported increased control over gambling expenditure and reduced impulsive overspends. Access to cash in gambling venues has also been restricted through limits on cheque cashing, with venues in several jurisdictions not cashing cheques over a specified amount (Hing 2003b, 2004; Savage & Murray 2011). Similarly, large winnings are typically paid only in ways which do not allow for instant re-gambling, often as cheques (Hing 2003b; Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW 2004). While little direct evidence exists to support the RG efficacy of these measures, the benefits from removing ATMs from venues (Thomas et al. 2013) indicate that other restrictions on access to cash are also likely to help limit gambling expenditure. Conversely, the availability of credit for online gambling has been identified by problem gamblers as a contributor to loss of control over gambling (Financial Counselling Australia 2015; Hing, Cherney, Gainsbury, Lubman, Wood & Blaszczynski 2015). Several studies have focused on modifications to EGMs, given they are the most problematic gambling form. Certain expenditure-related modifications to EGMs were assessed in an in-venue study which examined real gambling behaviour on purposefully modified EGMs (Sharpe, Walker, Coughlan, Enersen & Blaszczynski 2005). Structural changes comprised reducing maximum bet size, reducing reel spin, and removing large note acceptors. Despite earlier advocacy for lower denomination note acceptors (Ariyabuddhiphongs 2013; Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW 2004) and their implementation in some jurisdictions, this modification was not found to influence gambling patterns (Sharpe et al. 2005). The study concluded that reduction of maximum bet size was the only modification likely to be effective as a harm minimisation strategy for problem gamblers, as gamblers using these EGMs gambled for less time, made fewer wagers and lost less money (Sharpe et al. 2005). Cash displays on EGMs have also been reported as


Page 34



useful by a majority of players surveyed (Ladouceur & Sevigny 2009), particularly by pathological gamblers who found it easier to stop playing when the counter displayed actual monetary spend (Loba, Stewart, Klein & Blackburn 2001). Blaszczynski et al. (2014) investigated additional RG EGM features related to financial transactions, including bank meters to hold winnings until the end of a gambling session, a demo-mode allowing individuals to play without money, and a charity donation feature to dispose of residual amounts instead of playing them out. One-quarter of participants considered these features would prevent recreational gamblers from developing gambling-related problems, with just under one-half rating these effects to be at least moderate or significant. Overall, there is reasonable evidence that some financial transactions provisions and some EGM modifications are, or would be, effective RG measures. The aim of these measures is to help gamblers maintain control over their gambling expenditure to within planned or affordable levels, such as through reducing impulsive spending, limiting losses, and discouraging chasing losses and unplanned continued gambling. Thus, these behaviours may also be indicative of RCG.

Interaction with customers Many RG codes of conduct, including the Victorian Codes, provide for staff interactions with customers when the latter show signs of possible problem gambling or request assistance with a gambling problem. These interactions may include encouraging a break from gambling, offering refreshments away from the gambling room, referral to the venue’s RG manager, providing information on gambling help services, and implementing self-exclusion. Several studies have examined whether venue staff can reliably identify problem gamblers on the gaming floor. These studies have generally found that, while theoretically possible, its practical application is hindered by limits on staff time to observe patrons’ gambling behaviour, changes in staff on duty throughout the day and week, lack of clear instructions for staff, lack of commitment by venues, its potential to just drive patrons to alternative venues, and staff reticence to approach patrons for fear of a hostile response (Allcock et al. 2002; Delfabbro, Borgas & King 2012; Delfabbro, Osborn, Nevile, Skelt & McMillen 2007; Hing, Nuske & Holdsworth 2013; Schellinck & Schrans 2004; Thomas, Delfabbro & Armstrong 2014). Other studies have focused on staff responses when patrons approach them about their gambling, when they observe a patron to show signs of problem gambling, and when a third-party such as a spouse approaches them about concerns for a patron’s gambling (Hing & Nuske 2009, 2012a; Hing, Nisbet & Nuske 2010). These studies found that the first scenario typically prompts staff to provide information about self-exclusion and help-services; the second scenario is often ignored unless a patron is aggressive or disturbing other patrons; and the third scenario attracts mixed responses, primarily advice to the third-party to encourage the patron to self-exclude. Self-exclusion programs remain the gambling industry’s major response to problem gambling (Blaszczynski, Ladouceur & Nower 2007; Hing & Nuske 2009), and they have received comparatively extensive research. Only a minority of venue patrons (25–40 per cent) are typically aware of self-exclusion programs (Boreham et al. 2006; Hing 2003b), which limits or delays program enrolment. While higher risk gamblers are more aware than lower risk gamblers (Department of Justice and Attorney General 2012), increased promotion and advertising of selfexclusion programs have been advocated to increase uptake (Hing, Tolchard, Nuske, Holdsworth & Tiyce 2014; Ladouceur, Jacques, Giroux, Perland & Leblond 2000; Ly 2010).


Page 35



Other studies have evaluated the implementation of self-exclusion programs, with a major weakness being the ability to continue gambling at alternative venues (Hing, Tolchard et al. 2014), which 25–50 per cent of self-excluded people report doing (Bellringer, Coombes, Pulford & Abbott 2010; Cohen, McCormick & Corrado 2011; Hing & Nuske 2012b; Ly 2010). Substantial barriers to enrolment exist, especially shame and stigma, particularly when exclusion is required on-site from multiple venues (Hing, Tolchard et al. 2014). An additional weakness is often found in detection processes, with self-excluders reporting that the majority of breaches go undetected (Hing & Nuske 2012b; Hing, Tolchard et al. 2014; Ladouceur et al. 2000; Ly 2010). Participant satisfaction with self-exclusion programs is generally high (Ladouceur et al. 2000; Ly 2011; Gainsbury et al. 2013). Following self-exclusion, participants typically experience reduced urge to gamble, as well as reduced problem gambling symptoms, increased perception of control, reduced intensity of negative gambling consequences, improved financial circumstances, less time and money spent on gambling, abstinence from gambling, and treatment attendance (Bellringer et al. 2010; Hing, Russell, Tolchard & Nuske 2015; Ladouceur, Sylvain & Gosselin 2007; Ly 2010). However, evidence that these changes are caused by self-exclusion (rather than a commitment to change) is thin. Reviews of self-exclusion (Blaszczynski et al. 2007; Gainsbury 2010, 2014; Nowatzki & Williams 2002; Responsible Gambling Council 2008) have highlighted potential improvements, such as requiring identification to enter venues so that breaches are consistently detected, improved staff training, greater program publicity, and linking self-exclusion with clinical support. Overall, operator provisions for interactions with customers aim to encourage possible problem gamblers to take a break from gambling, whether on a temporary or longer-term basis. Staff interventions are also considered beneficial where patrons do not acknowledge or recognise problem gambling behaviours in themselves. This suggests that, as well as taking regular breaks from gambling, behaviours associated with RCG may include being able to recognise the signs and symptoms of a developing gambling problem in oneself.

Advertising and promotion A further element of RPG is for advertising to be conducted in an ethical manner which does not mislead or exaggerate the chances of winning, or contain claims which represent gambling as an activity which will guarantee social, financial or personal success (Blaszczynski et al. 2011; Delfabbro & King 2012; Responsible Gambling Council 2012). Several studies have examined the content and messages in gambling advertisements (Korn 2005; McMullan & Miller 2008, 2009, 2010; McMullan & Kervin 2012; Milner, Hing, Vitartas & Lamont 2013; Sproston, Hanley, Brook, Hing & Gainsbury 2015; Thomas, Lewis & Duong 2012). Other studies have measured awareness, attitudes and recall (Amey 2001; Carlson & Moore 1998; Lee, Lemanski & Jun 2008), and selfreported impacts including on vulnerable groups such as youth and adolescents (Binde 2009; Derevensky, Sklar, Gupta & Messerlain 2010; Felsher, Derevensky & Gupta 2003; Grant & Kim 2001; Hing, Vitartas, Lamont & Fink 2014; Hing, Lamont, Vitartas & Fink 2015a, 2015b). Another body of research has examined use of promotional inducements to gamble, including for landbased and internet gambling (Hing, Cherney et al. 2014; Hing, Sproston, Brading & Brook 2015; Lucas 2004; Lucas & Bowen 2002; Lucas, Dunn & Singh 2005; Lucas & Santos 2003; Suh 2012; Tanford & Lucas 2010). However, a recent review of gambling advertising research found it insufficient to inform evidence-based responsible marketing of gambling; instead, research needs to consider how themes and messages in gambling advertising relate to risk factors for problem gambling and might therefore motivate excessive gambling (Binde 2014). Another review (Parke, Harris, Parke, Rigbye & Blaszczynski 2015) notes the paucity of evidence of the impact that gambling advertising has on gambling behaviour and related harm, and of the efficacy of


Page 36



advertising regulations in minimising harm. They conclude that gambling marketing and advertising need to facilitate more informed choice for consumers, and to frame gambling in a more balanced manner. It should be noted, however, that no rigorous prospective studies of the effects of gambling advertising have been conducted so drawing definitive conclusions is pre-emptive. These conclusions underpin the emphasis on informed choice as a key principle underpinning RCG, and suggest that this might include resistance to being influenced to gamble more than intended or than is affordable by marketing that promotes gambling as a path to easy money, a glamorous lifestyle, status and popularity, and as a less risky activity than it actually is. Thus, accurate cognitions about gambling that are resistant to advertising and promotional appeals may be possible behavioural indicators of RCG.

Minors Prevention of underage gambling and restrictions on direct marketing to youth are undisputed elements of RG programs (Blaszczynski et al. 2011), and indicate that gambling only if an individual is of legal gambling age is a clear precursor to safe gambling consumption. A few studies have suggested further restrictions on gambling advertising to avoid exposure to youth (Gainsbury et al. 2014; Hing, Sproston et al. 2015; Responsible Gambling Council 2012), and raised concerns about underage access to Internet gambling websites and lack of rigorous age verification checks (Griffiths 1999; Monaghan 2009; Smeaton & Griffiths 2004). Williams et al. (2012) remark on the variable enforcement of restrictions on underage access to gambling, noting that this enforcement tends to be stronger where gambling is provided in adult settings (bars, clubs, casinos), but weaker when provided in public locations (e.g., arcades, retail shops). Overall however, prevention of gambling by minors has received little research attention, although underage exposure to and participation in gambling is associated with increased likelihood of problem gambling in adult life (Gupta & Derevensky 1998; Kessler et al. 2008; Productivity Commission 2010). There also exists a relatively large body of research on youth gambling behaviour and the impacts of gambling marketing on youth, which is not included in the current review of RG practices.


Page 37



3.3 Responsible gambling consumption 3.3.1 Definitions of responsible consumption of gambling Definitions pertaining to RCG have been highly variable, reflecting the general ambiguity surrounding this concept. Dickson-Gillespie et al. (2008, p. 44) point out that ‘the terms “responsible gambling” or “responsible gaming” generally refer to concepts applied to a broad range of issues and policies, from individual behaviours and attitudes to public health’. Korn and Shaffer (1999, p. 329) argue that ‘responsible gambling’ ‘has moral connotations’ and is ‘ambiguous’ because it can either imply ‘informed choice about gambling, advocacy of gambling, or subtly place the responsibility for gambling problems with the individuals that struggle against their impulses’. Currie, Hodgins, Wang, El-Guebaly and Wynne (2008a) note that the exact place where RG sits on the gambling continuum between no gambling and pathological gambling is unclear and that one could argue that any level of gambling that does not contribute to harm could be defined as responsible. Alternative terms have been used to describe non-harmful consumption of gambling. Korn and Shaffer (1999) use ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ to describe gambling behaviours, with healthy gambling said to encompass informed choice on the probability of winning, pleasurable gambling experiences in low risk situations, and wagering in sensible amounts, while sustaining or enhancing the individual’s wellbeing. The term ‘moderation gambling’ has been proposed to apply to gambling at an intensity which does not cause harm to the individual or others (Weinstock, Ledgerwood & Petry 2007). Currie, Hodgins, Wang, el-Guebaly, Wynne and Chen (2006, pp. 570– 1) note that RG is used to describe gambling ‘at recreational levels’. Wood and Griffiths (2015) coined the term ‘positive play’ to characterise the behaviours and attitudes of gamblers ‘who exhibit no problems or concerns with their gambling’. While conceding that ‘positive play’ could also accurately be referred to as non-problem gambling, they argue that their term may be more appealing to a broader range of gamblers than ‘responsible gambling’, which is often interpreted as targeting only problem gamblers. Some direction for behaviours associated with RCG is provided in the Reno Model (Blaszczynski et al. 2004), where gambling in a responsible manner is described as gambling ‘within (an individual’s) affordable limits of money, time and other resources’ (p. 567). Korn and Shaffer’s (1999) seminal paper on a public health framework for gambling further informs the attitudes, knowledge and behaviours that might underpin RCG. In promoting ‘healthy gambling’, these authors advocate measures to assist individuals to increase their self-awareness, clarify and set betting limits, and make informed gambling decisions. They explain that developing these personal skills involves: … a general knowledge of probability theory, the games and their specific odds of winning and losing as well as an understanding of the health and social risk consequences associated with gambling. People must acquire skills in the areas of decision making, selfmonitoring, and intervention. The challenges relate to making balanced, informed choices about the use of leisure time, entertainment preferences and dealing with financial gains or losses (1999, pp. 332–3). Wood and Griffiths (2015) argue that the message to gamblers conveyed by RPG has been about how to avoid developing a gambling problem by knowing the signs and symptoms of problem gambling, and by focusing on staying in control of their gambling. This message, they observe, provides little direction to gamblers about ‘what ‘non-problematic’ gambling actually looks like’.


Page 38



Shifting the emphasis from discouraging risky gambling behaviours to encouraging ‘positive play’ can advance efforts to identify strategies for gamblers to maintain healthy levels of gambling (Wood & Griffiths 2015). This aligns well with the aim of the current study to develop a preliminary set of behavioural indicators of RCG. Overall, while no consensus exists on a definition of RCG, the above interpretations suggest that some relevant inclusions are informed choice, low risk, an enjoyable experience, spending only affordable amounts of time and money, and absence of associated harm.

3.3.2 Specific studies into responsible gambling behaviours Various studies have examined community knowledge of RG, and attempted to identify the types and range of self-regulating strategies that gamblers independently adopt to maintain responsible levels of gambling. The most prominent are briefly reviewed here to indicate current progress in this area. Studies focusing on just one or a few strategies are reviewed later when individual RCG behaviours are considered. A study in Ontario (Turner, Wiebe, Falkowski-Ham, Kelly & Skinner 2005) is one of the few to examine people’s understanding of the term ‘responsible gambling’. Perceived meanings of ‘responsible gambling’ were collected via open-ended questions and coded into 20 themes. Less than two-fifths of respondents (39.8 per cent) reported having heard the term ‘responsible gambling’ and 6.8 per cent considered that the concept of RG does not exist. The most common remaining responses related to not spending more money than one can afford (27.8 per cent), setting a budget (17.9 per cent) and being in control (13.9 per cent). When asked about their own RG behaviours, most participants reported usually setting and keeping to a spending limit, setting and keeping to a time limit, quitting when bored or tired, not gambling until closing, and not borrowing money to gamble. However, use of these behaviours was not tested against any measure of responsible, non-problem or problem gambling. Another Canadian study (Lucar et al. 2013) also provides insights into how gamblers interpret RCG, specifically in relation to online gambling. Posts in gamblers’ online forums were analysed, with one forum asking for player perspectives on RG. Themes raised included gambling within preset monetary and time limits, understanding gambling risks, learning the games before staking money, gambling for enjoyment, and having realistic expectations about winning and losing. However, some gamblers commented that RG strategies are not used when people begin to gamble online, but only after incurring significant losses. This may indicate that many online gamblers do not consider RG to be a preventive measure, at least early in their online gambling careers. Only a few studies have examined gamblers’ self-regulating behaviours, with some focusing most on problem and at-risk gamblers. In a qualitative study, Thomas et al. (2010) analysed focus group and interview transcripts from at-risk and problem gamblers for strategies used to control their gambling. These strategies then informed a survey of a convenience sample of 238 ‘social gamblers’, 63 problem gamblers and two unclassified participants (Moore, Thomas, Kyrios & Bates 2012). Respondents rated the extent of usage of 20 gambling self-management techniques and completed the PGSI. Five factors emerged from a factor analysis, labelled Cognitive Approaches, Direct Action, Social Experience, Avoidance and Limit Setting. The most common self-regulation strategies used were focusing on non-gambling activities, keeping track of money spent, and setting limits on money gambled. Less used strategies were setting a time limit on gambling, maintaining awareness of the negative consequences of gambling, and keeping a social perspective on gambling. Attempts to control gambling via getting professional help, destroying


Page 39



credit cards or self-excluding were much less common. Avoidance strategies like keeping credit cards at home, avoiding gambling venues and asking friends to mind one’s money were used by only a minority of respondents but were more common than efforts to get formal help. The study found that problem gamblers trying to reduce their gambling were the most likely to use the strategies. The Moore et al. (2012) study is informative for the current study, identifying some self-regulating measures used by gamblers. However, its inclusion of strategies identified in qualitative research with only at-risk and problem gamblers means it may have overlooked those used by non-problem gamblers to maintain responsible levels of consumption. Instead, strategies assessed were those mostly used to regain control over gambling, such as self-exclusion, professional help, and asking friends to look out for them when at gambling venues. The researchers considered that the findings can assist problem gamblers to develop better self-regulation strategies rather than inform RCG. Similarly, A Study of Gambling in Victoria (Hare 2009) asked moderate risk and problem gamblers to rate the usefulness of various activities to help reduce their gambling. Activities with the highest usefulness ratings included having more leisure interests, having a wider social network, having more money, finding a relationship partner, and information on the odds of winning, respectively. Similar to the Moore et al. (2012) study, these strategies are aimed at reducing or controlling gambling amongst problem and at-risk players, rather than enhancing RCG amongst the general population of gamblers. In one of the few studies to focus on strategies used by non-problem gamblers to prevent gambling problems, Hagen, Nixon and Solowoniuk (2005) found that the older gamblers they studied reported their most important cognitive strategy in keeping gambling non-problematic as being fully aware of how dangerous it could be financially and personally and how one could be affected by dangerous thoughts (e.g. thinking that if you win once you will always win). Several participants stated that they reminded themselves that they would not usually win at gambling but instead they were guaranteed to lose. Many participants stressed the importance of not seeing themselves as lucky. The main behavioural strategies used were only taking limited money to the venue and stopping once that was spent; not re-investing wins into gambling by putting their wins away; making time and money go further by placing smaller bets; and not gambling alone to optimise their adherence to positive behaviours and as a way to keep gambling a social form of entertainment. Thus, findings from this research identified a range of RG behaviours used by nonproblem gamblers. Wood and Griffiths (2015) identified several gambling attitudes and behaviours distinguishing ‘positive players’ from possible problem gamblers. In terms of motivations to gamble, positive players were significantly less likely than problem gamblers to report that feeling excited and feeling relaxed were important for an enjoyable gambling experience, that they gambled to alleviate boredom and when depressed or upset, and gambling with friends and family. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups on the reported importance (to an enjoyable gambling experience) of having fun while gambling, and also the possibility to win a large prize and a small prize. In terms of RG strategies, positive players were more likely than problem gamblers to decide on a spend limit before they gambled, only take a predetermined amount of money to gamble, leave ATM cards at home when gambling, decide a time limit for their gambling, and work out what they could afford to spend before they gambled, as well as being more willing to set monetary and time limits on a variety of gambling forms. In relation to balancing gambling with other leisure activities, positive players were more likely to engage in several nongambling leisure activities. While these results do not establish causation, the authors maintain that ‘a strong association between problematic gambling and certain behaviours remains sufficient grounds on which to make recommendations for prevention strategies’ (2015).


Page 40



A recent New Zealand prevalence study (Abbott, Bellringer, Garrett & Mundy-McPherson 2014a, 2014b) asked gamblers whether there is anything they do ‘to stop themselves from spending too much money and/or time on gambling’. Around 30 per cent of these participants used such methods, with most using only one method. The most widely used method was setting a money limit, used by 69 per cent of those who used any self-limiting method. Other methods used by 5 per cent or more were separating betting money and stopping gambling when it was spent, avoiding venues, setting a time limit, and leaving bank cards at home. The vast majority using selfregulating methods reported them as effective. Use of these methods increased with gambling risk: by 27 per cent of non-problem gamblers to 78 per cent of problem gamblers. Higher risk groups were also more likely to use more than one method and to avoid gambling venues as a way of controlling their gambling. However, problem gamblers reported less efficacy of some methods, compared to non-problem gamblers, specifically time and monetary limits, and separating their betting money. Providing a youth perspective, Lostutter, Lucas, Cronce, Neighbors and Larimer (2014) surveyed US college students using a measure of ‘gambling protective behaviors’. Harm minimisation strategies (that reduce the money or time spent on gambling) that were used at least ‘usually’ on average were resisting the urge to return to a gambling venue to win back money lost, keeping track of the money spent while gambling, leaving the venue before running out of money, planning their gambling to not interfere with work or study, and controlling bet size to not exceed a personal maximum. No avoidance strategies (that help to minimise engagement in gambling activities) were ‘usually’ used, but those most frequently used were avoiding taking bank cards to the venue, drinking alcohol while gambling, and gambling when feeling down or depressed. Use of protective behaviours was generally associated with lower risk gambling outcomes, such as lower gambling frequency, expenditure and PGSI scores. Currie et al. (2008a) obtained expert opinion (N = 171) on the importance of ‘low risk limits’ for gambling, with respondents rating the importance of 11 RG behaviours advocated by the Responsible Gambling Council in Ontario. The top five rated behaviours (with 81–88 per cent of respondents rating each as very important) all related to monetary factors: not borrowing money to gamble, using only discretionary income, not chasing losses, setting and adhering to a budget, and not using ATMs to get more money for gambling than intended. Other behaviours rated as very important by over half the respondents were gambling for entertainment and not to make money, balancing gambling with other leisure activities, setting and adhering to a time limit, and knowing that the risks of problems increases at times of loss or depression. The remaining two behaviours (gamble together with friends and not alone, and taking frequent breaks) were rated as somewhat or very important by most participants. Overall, the above studies provide a wide range of cognitive and behavioural strategies that might usefully underpin RCG. They also clarify that strategies used by problem and at-risk gamblers to control their gambling, and their effectiveness, are likely to differ from those used by non-problem gamblers. This distinction needs consideration in developing behavioural indicators of RCG.

3.3.3 Measuring responsible consumption of gambling Further direction for developing behavioural indicators of RCG is provided by studies which have measured and provided safe gambling limits. These studies attempt to emulate the types of guidelines based on standard units of consumption provided for safe levels of alcohol consumption. However, developing a standard unit of gambling consumption is challenging, given that gambling comprises a heterogeneous collection of activities, each with distinct characteristics (Weinstock et al. 2007). In the absence of a single behavioural metric of gambling, studies have used frequency, duration and expenditure as proxy measures.


Page 41



Research by Currie and his colleagues are the most rigorous attempts to date to develop some validated and quantifiable safe gambling limits. Their research has sought to establish optimal frequency and expenditure limits for ‘low-risk gambling’ by applying the same methodology used to identify low-risk limits for alcohol consumption via risk curve analyses of the relationship between alcohol consumption and potential for harm. Currie et al. (2006) used this approach to examine the relationship of gambling frequency and gambling expenditure (total amount and percentage of income) with harm experienced from gambling. Risk curves indicated that the likelihood of experiencing gambling-related harm increased steadily as gambling frequency and expenditure increased. Their studies established low-risk limits as gambling no more than two to three times per month, spending no more than CAN$501–1,000 per year on gambling, and investing no more than 1 per cent of gross family income on gambling activities, with the risk of gambling-related harm increasing significantly when these limits were exceeded (Currie et al. 2006). These optimal limits for low-risk gambling have been confirmed in studies using data from the Canadian Community Health Survey: Mental Health and Well-being cycle (N = 19,012; Currie et al. 2006), from gambling prevalence studies in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario (N = 7,675; Currie et al. 2008b), from six Canadian provincial gambling surveys (N = 12,285; Currie et al. 2009), and amongst 809 Albertans in a longitudinal study (Currie et al. 2011). One of these studies (Currie et al. 2011) investigated the influence of other risk factors on the escalation of gambling intensity and gamblingrelated harm. However, use of responsible (or irresponsible) gambling consumption behaviours have not been incorporated into the modelling of low-risk gambling limits. In recognition that their low-risk limits provide little direction for helping gamblers adhere to them, Currie et al. note that these limits ‘could be used to augment existing responsible gambling guidelines’ (2008b, p. 321). However, no existing guidelines on behaviours that underpin RCG have yet been empirically tested or validated. Using a similar approach involving risk curve analysis, Weinstock et al. (2007) derived behavioural indicators for gambling ‘in moderation’ amongst pathological gamblers after treatment. By comparing posttreatment gambling of ‘problem-free’ (SOGS score = 0) and ‘symptomatic’ (SOGS score ≥ 1) gamblers, they identified behavioural indicators of the problem-free group as gambling no more than once per month, gambling for no more than 1.5 hours per month, and spending no more than 1.9 per cent of monthly income on gambling. However, the sample size was relatively small, comprising 45 ‘problem-free gamblers’ and 133 ‘symptomatic gamblers’. This may explain the somewhat different results obtained compared to Currie et al. (2006), as well as differences due to sampling and jurisdictional variations. The above studies confirm that identifying empirically-derived safe gambling limits appears possible and provide a promising start to their development. However, whether the limits so far derived are applicable across jurisdictions is not known.4 Further, while these limits provide useful parameters for gamblers, they stop short of identifying behaviours and cognitions that might assist them to maintain adherence to these limits. Thus, the literature review now focuses on other selfregulating gambling strategies that have been examined.

3.3.4 Responsible gambling consumption behaviours The literature review revealed 57 strategies or behaviours reportedly used by non-problem, at-risk or problem gamblers, or suggested for use, to maintain control over gambling and engage in gambling in a safe or responsible manner. These various RCG behaviours were grouped into nine categories, as shown in Table 3.2.

4 A team of researchers from Deakin University, the Australian National University and Turning Point is currently developing Australian RG limits using a similar methodology to Currie and colleagues.


Page 42



Table 3.2. List of responsible gambling consumption strategies Category

Strategies

Managing overall finances

      

Reduce limits on credit cards. Cut up credit cards. Get a debit card without a PIN so that money cannot be withdrawn from an ATM. 5 Require two signatures to withdraw money from bank account. Pay bills and buy groceries before gambling. Have bill payments withdrawn automatically from bank account. Set financial goals.

Monetary limits on gambling

                     

Gamble only what is affordable. Use only discretionary income to gamble. Only take a certain amount of money to gamble. Before going, work out how much money you can afford to lose. Set a win limit/loss limit. Setting monetary limits before leaving home/before gambling. Keep a gambling budget and leave the venue once it is lost. Spend no more than CAN$501–1000 per year on gambling. Spend no more than 1–1.9% of income on gambling. Do not borrow money to gamble. Do not chase gambling losses. Leave ATM cards at home. Do not use ATMs to withdraw more money. Ask someone else to hold bank/credit card while at the gambling venue. Ask a reliable person to hold your money while at the gambling venue. Ask your friends not to lend you money if you exceed your spending limit. Separate gambling money from other money by using different pockets. Move a portion of gambling chips out of sight to reduce temptation. Play only low denomination EGMs. Spend only coins. Set limit of bets per EGM spin. Only play with winnings.

Time restrictions on gambling

      

Set time limits on gambling sessions. Gamble no more than 2–3 times per month. Gamble no more than 1.5 hours per month. Take frequent breaks when gambling. Go to a gambling venue only at set intervals. Arrive at the gambling venue a short time before closing. Instruct the doorman not to let you into the gambling venue again that day.

Taking an informed approach to gambling

         

Think about what else the money could buy. Do not drink when gambling. Remind self of the negative consequences of gambling. Know the risks of gambling. Expect to lose and see winning as a bonus. Research a bet well. Avoid venues which have gambling facilities. Place bets at a TAB and leave to watch the match at home. Do not drive past favourite gambling venues. Self-exclusion from gaming venues.

Avoiding opportunities to gamble

5 This strategy is now obsolete as all debit cards in Australia now require a PIN.


Page 43



Motivations for gambling

  

Gamble for entertainment, not to make money or for mood regulation. Do not be influenced by gambling promotions. Avoid betting on hot tips.

Using social support

 

Gamble with others. Verbally announce gambling limits to others.

Using help services Engaging in other activities



Seek professional gambling help if required.

    

Balance gambling with other leisure activities. Book social obligations at times when you may want to gamble. Plan an activity for afterwards to be forced to stop gambling. Reduce frequency of gambling by engaging in other activities. Distract self with other activities.

Managing overall finances Gambling within safe levels can be facilitated by using strategies to manage overall finances. These include working out how much one can afford to lose, using only discretionary income to gamble with, and keeping a gambling budget (Blaszczynski et al. 2014; Hing 2005; Wood & Griffiths 2015). Gamblers interviewed by Lalande and Ladouceur (2011) used a variety of these strategies, although these varied between the 10 problem and 10 non-problem gamblers in the sample. Most problem gamblers reported paying their bills first, with some having arranged direct debits for bills. Some arranged debit cards without a PIN so they could not make ATM withdrawals. Most also reported only using disposable income for gambling, although some moderated other leisure activities if they spent too much on gambling. Most non-problem gamblers reported establishing a budget for leisure activities including gambling, with gambling expenditure rarely consuming their entire leisure budget. Moore et al. (2012) also examined self-regulating activities of gamblers. One pre-gambling strategy used amongst the 303 gamblers surveyed was to cut up credit cards, reported by only about 5 per cent of non-problem gamblers but by significantly more problem gamblers (38 per cent). McDonnell-Phillips (2006) investigated how regular gamblers (N = 482) raise money for gambling (amongst numerous other aspects related to pre-commitment). About two-thirds (65 per cent) reported always paying their bills/debts first and then gambling with the balance, but only about one-half (49 per cent) reported calculating an affordable limit to this expenditure. Those who did were less likely to exceed their gambling spend limit. Further, problem gamblers used more creative strategies to raise money for gambling, including using household expense money, borrowing money and selling possessions. The author concluded that many regular gamblers do not always consider affordability, even when setting gambling limits in advance. Qualitative comments received from 339 gamblers in another study (Hing 2005), also confirmed that paying bills first and only gambling with spare money are two strategies sometimes used to plan for controlled expenditure when gambling. Lucar et al. (2013) identified cancelling e-wallets and reducing limits on debit and credit cards as pre-gambling strategies used by some online gamblers to manage overall finances and their subsequent gambling spend. The above findings indicate that gamblers use a range of strategies to facilitate RCG within the context of managing their overall finances, and that this usage may vary between problem and non-problem gamblers. While both groups appear to typically pay bills first and then gamble with discretionary income, problem gamblers may be more likely to sacrifice other leisure activities, sell items and borrow to raise money for gambling. They also appear more likely to use external controls on finances, such as destroying credit cards and having PINs removed from debit cards.


Page 44



Monetary limits on gambling Setting and adhering to monetary limits on gambling is a logical element of RCG. Many gamblers voluntarily set their own gambling limits, usually in relation to monetary spend (i.e., loss) (Abbott et al. 2014a; Dzik 2006; Ladouceur et al. 2012; McDonnell-Phillips 2006; Moore et al. 2012; Nelson, Kleschinsky, LaPlante, Gray & Shaffer 2013; Samson, Rossen & Hoque 2012; Schottler Consulting 2010a). Another type of monetary limit is a win limit, although used by only a minority of gamblers (Nelson et al. 2013). Walker, Litvin, Sobel and St-Pierre (2014, 2015) investigated the utility of win limits through computer simulations. Results indicated that a win limit would reduce the average gambler’s financial losses and result in more people leaving a gambling session while ahead, compared to not using win limits. While questions remain over the optimal size of a win limit, the authors concluded that win limits may be a promising RG strategy. Studies have identified three groups of gamblers: (1) those who set and usually adhere to specific limits; (2) those who set limits but fail to adhere to them, stopping instead when they run out of money, realise they have other activities to pursue, or because of guilt; and (3) those who do not specify limits but rarely spend more than intended (Maddern 2004; Wohl et al. 2008). Research has found that around 80 per cent of gamblers usually set a loss limit before gambling, but that higher-risk gamblers set higher and more variable limits than lower-risk gamblers (Lalande & Ladouceur 2011; Nelson et al. 2013). Lalande and Ladouceur (2011) also found that problem gamblers exceeded their limit 42 per cent of the time, compared to 8 per cent for non-problem gamblers. Nower and Blaszczynski’s (2010) Queensland survey of 127 venue patrons found that problem gamblers are more reticent than lower risk groups to set monetary limits prior to gambling, even though they report losing track of expenditure and of whether they are ahead or behind during a gambling session. They reported that problem gamblers were more likely than lower risk groups to usually decide how much they would gamble only once they had commenced gambling, to not set any limits, to let the situation dictate how much they would spend, and to decide their expenditure based on how much they were losing (Nower & Blaszczynski 2010). In contrast, significantly more non-problem gamblers in the study reported that they set specific monetary limits on their gambling and adhered to them. Other Australian studies have investigated pre-commitment to self-set limits as a self-regulating strategy. McDonnell-Phillips (2006) found that virtually all of the 482 regular EGM and TAB gamblers in that study reported having some monetary amount which they attempt to adhere to while gambling, although with varying success. The most used type of limit, by 84 per cent of the sample, was a maximum spend limit that was mainly applied per gambling session (43 per cent) or per week (27 per cent), rather than per day, fortnight, month or year. The author concluded that regular gamblers do not typically monitor their gambling expenditure over the longer-term and ‘that even regular gambling is a “point-in-time” activity which does not elicit longer term planning’ (2006, p. 391). Further, the tendency to only set limits after arriving at a gambling venue was stronger amongst problem gamblers compared to lower risk groups, consistent with previous findings (Nower & Blaszczynski 2010). About one-fifth (21 per cent) of problem gamblers only set limits after they had commenced gambling. Overall, higher-risk groups set monetary limits later and for a shorter period (i.e., per session), with both of these tendencies associated with greater likelihood of exceeding those limits. Thus, while setting limits did not distinguish between problem and other regular gamblers in this study, problem gamblers were more likely than lower risk groups to exceed all types of monetary limits (McDonnell-Phillips 2006). In fact, exceeding limits was very common; only 29 per cent of regular EGM gamblers and 36 per cent of regular TAB punters reported never exceeding their limits. Three factors explained 20 per cent of the variance in why gamblers exceed their limits: sensing that a win is due, reserving EGMs to prevent others accessing the next win, and goal-setting to obtain so many free spins/features before leaving. The


Page 45



study concluded that education to dispel common gambling myths and advice against goal-setting may help gamblers adhere to limits. Numerous strategies are used by gamblers to help them adhere to their monetary gambling limits. Many involve limiting the amount of available cash while gambling, with access to cash strongly associated with exceeding gambling limits (McDonnell-Philips 2006). These strategies include only taking a certain amount of money to gamble with, leaving ATM cards at home, not borrowing money to gamble, asking a reliable person to hold your money while at the venue, asking friends not to lend you money if you exceed your limit, avoiding withdrawing money from ATMs, and moving a portion of gambling chips out of sight to reduce temptation (Blaszczynski et al. 2014; Currie et al. 2008a; Dzik 2006; Lalande & Ladouceur 2011; McDonnell-Phillips 2006; Samson et al. 2012; Turner et al. 2005; Wood & Griffiths 2015). Other money limiting strategies involve certain within-game strategies to contain gambling expenditure. These include avoiding chasing losses, playing only low denomination EGMs, setting a limit of bets per EGM spin, only playing with winnings, and only spending coins (Blaszczynski et al. 2014; Currie et al. 2008a; Hing 2005; Wood & Griffiths 2015). While these strategies have good face validity, empirical research has not yet ascertained if they are essential to RCG. However, a Victorian prevalence survey (Hare 2009) found that the more money people brought to a gambling session, the higher the problem gambling risk, and that problem gamblers were significantly more likely than non-problem gamblers to bring bank cards to a gambling venue and to use them on multiple occasions while gambling. While causation cannot be assumed, these findings suggest that limiting access to gambling money is associated with more RCG. Schottler Consulting (2010a), in a study of 200 regular EGM gamblers, found they used a mixture of strategies to limit access to cash and to contain gambling expenditure. Reducing bet size (27 per cent), keeping track of spending (23 per cent), limiting money brought to the venue (17 per cent), setting limits (17 per cent), and reducing lines played (15 per cent) were the most popular strategies. Nevertheless, only around 30 per cent used control strategies to keep to their spending limits, with no significant differences between gambler risk groups. Players who did not use control strategies were more likely to exceed their limits. Another Australian study (McDonnell-Phillips 2006) sheds light on the self-reported effectiveness of self-control strategies, which differed amongst gambler risk groups. Problem gamblers reported that their most effective strategies were leaving bank cards at home, placing bets at the TAB and leaving to watch the race at home, betting at a TAB agency to avoid spending too much at the track, taking only what you plan to spend on gambling, avoiding high or large bets, and researching a bet such as through reading the form guide. Non-problem gamblers reported that their most effective strategies were avoiding betting on hot tips, asking a reliable friend/spouse to hold their money, taking a break when losing control, gambling with another person who is better at self-control (but spending individually), and using willpower. These findings suggest that the effectiveness of self-limiting strategies may vary amongst different gambler risk groups. Hing, Cherney et al. (2015) examined self-limiting strategies used in online gambling by 25 nontreatment seeking moderate-risk and problem gamblers. Most strategies involved monetary limits, including limiting amounts deposited or available in online gambling accounts, and limiting amounts gambled per day or week to a dollar amount or a percentage of overall funds available. However, most participants used informal approaches to establishing limits, including using willpower and common sense to determine amounts to gamble, restricting the amount of available money in gambling accounts, restricting bets to $1, or setting a weekly budget. Participants also cited several examples of exceeding self-imposed limits, such as when a favourite horse was racing, following a near win, when consuming alcohol, when tempted by advertising and


Page 46



promotions, and when credit was available for gambling. However, this analysis did not include self-control strategies used by non-problem or low risk gamblers. The above findings indicate that setting monetary gambling limits, especially a spend/loss limit, is a commonly used strategy by gamblers but that they do not always consider affordability. Higher risk gamblers tend to set higher limits, and to set their limits immediately before or during gambling sessions. Higher risk gamblers also have less success in adhering to limits, although most regular gamblers appear to exceed their pre-set limits at least sometimes. Gamblers use many strategies to help them adhere to limits, including limiting access to cash when gambling and adjusting their gambling behaviour to contain expenditure. Strategies reported as effective vary between problem and non-problem gamblers. While these findings are highly informative about the range of strategies that can be used, there is little evidence to support which are most effective in helping consumers gamble within their affordable financial limits.

Time restrictions on gambling The Reno Model (Blaszczynski et al. 2004) identifies gambling within affordable time limits as an element of gambling in a responsible manner. Consumers use self-imposed time restrictions on gambling in various ways, mainly by limiting the number of times they gamble per week and the length of gambling sessions. Some studies (Thomas et al. 2010; Turner et al. 2005) have found that setting time limits is a commonly used strategy, while others have found that only a minority of gamblers do so with gamblers generally preferring monetary limits. For example, less than 20 per cent of participants in a survey of problem and non-problem gamblers reported using personal time limits to facilitate RCG (Lalande & Ladouceur 2011). McDonnell-Phillips (2006) found that setting limits on session length and number of sessions per week was far less frequent than setting monetary limits amongst a sample of regular EGM and regular TAB gamblers, but was used more frequently by problem and moderate risk gamblers compared to lower risk gamblers. Regular EGM gamblers were more likely to exceed these self-imposed time limits than were the regular TAB gamblers, and the self-reported harm arising from exceeding time limits increased with the risk status of gamblers. Further, this self-reported harm was much greater amongst EGM gamblers compared to TAB punters. However, these harms were lower than those reported for exceeding monetary limits (McDonnell-Phillips 2006). Similar results were found by Schottler Consulting (2010a). A little over one-quarter (28 per cent) of the 200 EGM gamblers in that study used some kind of time limit. Time limits set for EGM gambling sessions averaged 62 minutes; at-risk and problem gamblers combined were less likely to set time limits than non-problem gamblers; and problem gamblers were found to set significantly longer session time limits (average 81.3 minutes vs 50.3 minutes for non-problem gamblers). Nearly one-fifth (17 per cent) of EGM gamblers exceeded their time limit during EGM gambling, with problem gamblers more likely to do so compared to non-problem gamblers. Moore et al. (2012) reported that over 60 per cent of problem gamblers in their study endorsed setting time limits on how long they would stay at a gambling venue, which was nearly double the proportion of non-problem gamblers (37 per cent). In the online environment, time limits also appear to be commonly used, with one study finding it was always or mostly used by 53 per cent of the 1,484 gamblers surveyed, with 26 per cent reporting that they never set time limits (Wood & Griffiths 2015). Compared to the problem gamblers in that study, ‘positive players’ were significantly more likely to set time limits on their online gambling sessions. Another time-limiting strategy used is taking frequent breaks from gambling, particularly when gamblers feel they are losing control (Currie et al. 2008a; McDonnell-Phillips 2006). For example, Dzik (2006) noted that experienced casino players in his observational study reduced the


Page 47



frequency of their gambling by regularly walking away from the betting table and engaging in distracting activities. Other strategies reported in the literature include arriving at the venue a short time before closing (Lalande & Ladouceur 2011), and instructing the doorman not to let them into the venue again that day (Hing 2005). Overall, time-limiting strategies are reportedly used by a minority of gamblers, although less often than monetary limits. While evidence is mixed as to whether time limits are used most by low or high risk gamblers, and about their differential use for different types of gambling, higher risk gamblers appear to set more generous time limits and to be more likely to exceed their limits. There is again a lack of evidence for the efficacy of time limits as RCG strategies.

Taking an informed approach to gambling As discussed earlier, informed choice and decision-making are considered fundamental aspects of gambling responsibly (Blaszczynski et al. 2004, 2008, 2011; Parke et al. 2014b). Thus, knowledge of how gambling games operate (such as the role of chance and the odds of winning), of the risks and potential harms of gambling, of one’s own gambling behaviour, and of how to engage in safe gambling practices should, in theory, enhance informed choice. The logic is that fewer erroneous cognitions and deficiencies in knowledge enhance an individual’s capacity to make informed decisions (Monaghan & Blaszczynski 2010). However, as Parke et al. (2014b) explain, dissociation and narrowed attention during gambling can decrease an individual’s self-awareness of their behaviour, which in turn is detrimental to rational decision-making. Therefore, consistently applying knowledge that might enhance informed decision-making during gambling sessions may be difficult for some gamblers, particularly those with gambling problems (Dickerson 2003). Parke et al. (2014b, p. 8) explain that ‘problem gamblers, by nature, often have reduced capacity for planning and cognitive flexibility which is likely to lead to impaired judgement and optimal decision-making, and are therefore, more likely to find themselves spending beyond what they can reasonably afford’. These authors provide numerous suggestions for enhancing the efficacy of RG and problem gambling information. However, these suggestions are directed at gambling operators and public health campaigns, rather than at consumers. The literature review identified few strategies that can be adopted by gamblers to enhance informed and rational decision-making. One of these was limiting or abstaining from alcoholic drinks prior to and during play, given that alcohol impedes an individual’s ability to effectively selfregulate and monitor thoughts, feeling and actions (Brown 2008; McDonnell-Phillips 2006). Another behavioural strategy was to research bets well and avoid betting on ‘hot tips’ (McDonnellPhillips 2006). Cognitive strategies identified include knowing the risks associated with gambling (Currie et al. 2008a), expecting to lose while see winning as a bonus (Hing 2005; Lucar et al. 2013), thinking about what else the money could buy (Hing 2005), and reminding one’s self of the negative consequences of gambling (Korn & Shaffer 1999). One study (Moore et al. 2012) revealed that 40 per cent of gambler respondents reported limiting the amount of alcohol they consume in order to limit or manage their gambling; this was used by significantly more problem (68 per cent) than non-problem 33 per cent) gamblers. Fifty-five per cent reported that they ‘think about the negative consequences of excessive gambling that I have observed, heard about, or read’; again, problem gamblers (83 per cent) were significantly more likely to do this than were non-problem gamblers (59 per cent). Currie et al.’s (2008a) study revealed that knowing ‘that the risk of problems increases at times of loss or depression’ was endorsed as very important by 55 per cent, and important by 33 per cent, of the experts in their study.


Page 48



Conflicting findings have emerged, however, about whether enhanced knowledge facilitates RCG. While correcting inaccurate gambling cognitions, and beliefs about probability and the odds of winning were found to moderate problem gamblers’ behaviour in one study (Ladouceur, Sylvain, Boutin & Doucet 2002), Parke et al. (2014b) point to numerous studies that have failed to find a relationship between such knowledge and sound gambling decision-making and changes in actual gambling behaviour. As noted earlier, Williams et al. (2012) have criticised RG approaches that rely mainly on informed consent as being unlikely to be effective.

Avoiding opportunities to gamble Avoiding opportunities to gamble through avoiding gambling venues is a strategy used by only a minority of gamblers. Only 7.7 per cent of gamblers in the most recent New Zealand prevalence study (Abbott et al. 2014a) reported avoiding places that have betting or gambling as an attraction. However, this was more commonly used by higher risk gamblers: by 29 per cent of problem gamblers and 16 per cent of moderate-risk gamblers compared to 6 per cent of non-problem gamblers (Abbott et al. 2014b). Interestingly, Pacific participants (23 per cent), more often than European/Other (7 per cent) and Maori (9 per cent) participants reported using this method, suggesting that cultural factors may also influence use of self-regulating behaviours. Overall, 89 per cent of gamblers using this method considered it to be effective, although this was lower amongst problem gamblers (65 per cent). Other studies have focused on strategies which may assist gamblers to avoid gambling venues, such as changing routes to avoid driving past certain locations and favourite gambling venues (Ariyabuddhiphongs 2013; Lostutter et al. 2014; McDonnell-Phillips 2006; Moore et al. 2012; Samson et al. 2012). Moore et al. (2012) found that 18 per cent of their research participants reported avoiding walking or driving past certain locations, with problem gamblers (46 per cent) much more likely to do this than non-problem gamblers (11 per cent). Similarly, 30 per cent reported avoiding visiting certain places like the casino; and again, problem gamblers (65 per cent) were significantly more like to use this strategy than non-problem gamblers (20 per cent). Placing bets at a TAB and leaving to watch the match at home has also been reported as a strategy used to lessen gambling opportunities and to therefore moderate gambling consumption (McDonnellPhillips 2006). Another, albeit more formal way, to try to avoid gambling venues is to self-exclude, with the related literature reviewed earlier. Self-exclusion can be enacted both in land-based venues and from online gambling websites. Self-imposed blocking from gambling sites using specific software is also a strategy used by Internet gamblers (Hing, Cherney et al. 2015). Clearly, avoiding land-based and online gambling venues is an effective method of curtailing gambling. Thus, limiting gambling opportunities appears to be a logical element of RCG. However, there is little evidence to indicate how easy or difficult this strategy is for gamblers to implement, although the self-exclusion literature indicates that a substantial minority of problem gamblers breach their self-exclusion order, even though they risk embarrassment and possibly a fine if detected. This suggests that avoiding gambling venues is a difficult strategy for many problem gamblers to adhere to. Further, the marketplace now offers a myriad of new gambling products, services and platforms, including smartphone apps, that make it more difficult to avoid gambling and enable betting in almost any physical or social environment (Gordon, Gurrieri & Chapman 2015).

Motivations for gambling Reasons motivating gambling also appear relevant to RCG. A range of motivations for gambling have been identified. One three-factor model identifies enhancement motives, coping motives and


Page 49



social motives (Stewart & Zack 2008). A five-factor model identifies excitement, socialisation, avoidance, monetary and amusement motives (Lee, Chae, Lee & Kim 2007). While these reflect variations in motivation orientation, individuals also vary from having no motivation to gamble to being highly motivated to gamble (Ryan & Deci 2000). Both the orientation and strength of motivations are associated with different outcomes from participating in gambling, particularly where gambling leads to negative consequences. Studies reveal that stronger endorsement of most gambling motivations is associated with higher gambling involvement (Delfabbro 2012), while previous research and theoretical models have endorsed gambling to escape and for mood regulation as increasing risks for gambling problems (Blaszczynski & Nower 2002; Nower & Blaszczynski 2010; Saugeres, Thomas, Moore & Bates 2012; Williams et al. 2012). For example, Hing, Russell, Tolchard and Nower’s (2015) gender analysis of Victorian gambling prevalence data found that gambling to escape boredom, relieve stress, and take the respondent’s mind off things were problem gambling risk factors for both men and women. Studies have generally found that problem gamblers typically gamble to escape from other problems in their lives, with EGMs used for their arousal reducing and dissociating qualities, which may explain their association with the vast majority of gambling problems (Delfabbro 2012; Williams et al. 2012). Thus gambling as a coping mechanism (Stewart & Zack 2008) or for avoidance (Lee et al. 2007) is generally advised against in RCG information. More recently, social motivations have been associated with heavy sports betting, especially amongst young adult males (Gordon et al. 2015). However, surprisingly few publications on the role of gambling motivations in RG were found in our literature search, although motivations have been extensively researched in relation to problem gambling. Nevertheless, Wood and Griffiths (2015) provide some insights. While there was no significant difference between how ‘positive players’ and possible problem gamblers rated the importance for an enjoyable gambling experience of winning a small or large prize or of being entertained, positive players were less likely than problem gamblers to consider being excited and feeling relaxed were important. Further, possible problem gamblers were more likely than positive players to report gambling to alleviate boredom, when depressed, or when upset. Other literature identified gambling for entertainment purposes, and not with the view to make money, avoiding gambling when feeling down or depressed, and not being influenced by advertising as behaviours that are used or advocated to moderate gambling (Ariyabuddhiphongs 2013; Currie et al. 2008a; Lostutter et al. 2014). For example, 75 per cent of respondents in a survey of experts (N = 171) considered gambling for entertainment and not to make money as a very important RCG guideline, with only 2 per cent rating it as not at all important (Currie et al. 2008a). Most gamblers in Lostutter et al.’s (2014) study of college students (N = 1,922) reported avoiding gambling when they felt down or depressed at least sometimes during the past six months. Overall, evidence of a link between gambling motivations and RCG is tentatively based on associations of differing motivations with non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers. This evidence has emerged from literature examining motivations for gambling overall, rather than motivations driving engagement in individual gambling sessions. Research examining the latter might better illuminate whether motivations have a direct impact on within-session gambling behaviour. Nevertheless, avoiding gambling as a coping and avoidance mechanism may potentially enhance safer gambling consumption.

Using social support Conflicting evidence has been found in relation to using social support when gambling. Some researchers have recommended that individuals do not gamble alone (Blaszczynski et al. 2014).


Page 50



Currie et al. (2008a) found that ‘gambling together with friends or family, not alone’ was considered very important by 35 per cent and important by 38 per cent of the gambling experts they surveyed. Related behaviours used by gamblers include ‘going to gambling venues with friends so I won’t be tempted to gamble too much’, avoiding gambling alone, and ‘asking a friend to look out for me when I’m at a gambling venue’ (Moore et al. 2012). These strategies were used by 40 per cent, 37 per cent and 21 per cent of gambler participants, respectively. Usage of only the last strategy varied by risk group, with problem gamblers (38 per cent) significantly more likely than nonproblem gamblers (17 per cent) to ask a friend to look out for them when at a venue. Another type of social support strategy, announcing limits to others an individual is gambling with, may also aid in maintaining control (McDonnell-Phillips 2006). Lostutter et al. (2014) found that ‘having a friend let me know when it’s time to stop gambling’ was an infrequently used control strategy amongst their college student gamblers. However, Wood and Griffiths (2015) cast some doubt on the utility of gambling with others to help maintain RCG behaviour. The problem gamblers in their study were significantly more likely than the ‘positive players’ to gamble with family and friends. They concluded that, contrary to a popular RCG message, social gambling may not be inherently safer than gambling alone. It may be that who an individual gambles with, in terms of whether they are heavy gamblers or not, is more relevant to maintaining control over gambling than whether one gamblers alone or with others. Overall, evidence to support that gambling with others is likely to enhance RCG is, at best, weak.

Using help services A final strategy investigated in research into self-regulation methods for gambling has been use of help services. Moore et al. (2012) found that getting professional help to cope with their gambling was reportedly used by 13 per cent of gamblers in their sample, and not surprisingly, by significantly more problem (40 per cent) than non-problem (6 per cent) gamblers. Our review did not reveal any additional studies either examining or suggesting help-seeking as a RCG strategy, although there is a substantial body of research on the use of help services and other interventions to address problem gambling (see for example, Cunningham 2005; Hing, Nuske & Gainsbury 2011; Hodgins & el-Guebaly 2000; Jackson, Dowling, Thomas & Holt 2008; Lubman et al. 2015; Pallesen, Mitsem, Kvale, Johnsen & Molde 2005; Petry 2005; Slutske 2006; Suurvali, Hodgins, Toneatto & Cunningham 2008; Tavares, Martins, Zilberman & el-Guebaly 2002). These studies on help-seeking are not reviewed here as they have limited relevance to responsible consumption of gambling.

Engaging in other activities Balancing gambling with other activities and reducing the frequency of gambling by engaging in other pursuits have been deemed important ways of facilitating RCG (Currie et al. 2008a; Responsible Gambling Council 2010). This strategy was rated as very important by 72 per cent of expert survey respondents with only 4 per cent considering this strategy to be not at all important to RCG behaviour (Currie et al. 2008a). However, only a minority of gamblers appear to use this as a preventive strategy. Only 1.7 per cent of gamblers in a New Zealand prevalence study (Abbott et al. 2014a) reported being ‘too busy/doing other things’ as an explicit method to stop gambling too much, although higher rates were found amongst low risk (2.3 per cent), moderate risk (4.1 per cent) and problem (2.4 per cent) gamblers (Abbott et al. 2014b). In contrast, Moore et al. (2012) found that 40 per cent of gamblers surveyed reported keeping themselves busy with other activities so they are less tempted to gamble, with this strategy significantly more likely to be used by problem gamblers (76


Page 51



per cent) compared to non-problem gamblers (30 per cent). This higher usage of diversionary activities is likely explained by the inclusion of problem gamblers who were actively trying to curtail their gambling. An even larger proportion of the sample (69 per cent) focused on other hobbies as a way to moderate their gambling, and this was also used by significantly more problem gamblers (90 per cent) than non-problem gamblers (64 per cent). Respondents also spent more time with family and friends as a self-regulating strategy (52 per cent); used by 86 per cent of problem gamblers compared to 43 per cent of non-problem gamblers. A few studies have also considered strategies used within gambling venues to limit a sole focus on gambling. Moore et al. (2012) found that 43 per cent of their respondents reported only going to venues that provide other activities as well as gambling, with no differences in usage of this strategy amongst different risk groups. Dzik (2006) observed that some casino gamblers distract themselves from gambling with other in-venue activities, such as walking around the casino and visiting the bar. The above studies indicate that balancing gambling with other activities is used by gamblers as a self-regulating strategy, although there is no direct evidence of its effectiveness in enhancing RCG behaviour. However, preoccupation with gambling is a symptom of problem gambling, so it is logical that reducing any preoccupation may lead to safer gambling patterns. Diversionary activities are also used to reduce time spent on gambling, which should assist in moderating gambling consumption.

3.4 Chapter conclusion 

A considerable amount of research has been dedicated to RPG. However, most related studies have been limited to process evaluations examining the types of RPG strategies implemented by gambling operators and how effectively they have been implemented.



Consumer interaction with operator RPG features and strategies has attracted less research. However, this is increasing for online gambling where it is relatively easy to identify customer usage of certain features e.g., limit-setting functions. Overall however, research into consumer uptake of RPG features and strategies has been concentrated in only a few areas, especially self-exclusion. The longer-term effects of RPG strategies remain unknown as no relevant longitudinal studies have been conducted. Additionally, the combined effects across multiple strategies is unknown.



With the exception of a few studies conducted before and after the introduction of specific RPG strategies, most strategies have little evidence to support their efficacy in reducing gamblingrelated harm beyond research that has used self-report measures and some experimental studies. Self-report studies are subject to recall and social desirability bias, while experimental studies may be limited in their ecological validity. Prospective research is needed to understand the longer-term effects of operator RPG strategies on consumers.



Overall, there is weak evidence to inform policy and practice in RPG. Nevertheless, even recommendations from government inquiries that have assembled comprehensive evidence for certain measures have not always been implemented. Thus, substantial progress is needed for gambling policy in RPG to be evidence-based.


Page 52





There is no agreed definition or set of underlying principles for RCG in the literature. It is also unclear who responsible gambling messages and guidelines should target and whether they aim to prevent gambling harm, reduce gambling harm or assist the resolution of a gambling problem.



Little research has been conducted to understand the behaviours and strategies which gamblers can engage in to gamble responsibly. This meagre body of research has been limited to descriptive studies of strategies used by different gambler risk groups, and also those used by problem gamblers seeking to curtail their gambling. Longitudinal research is needed to establish any causal effects of utilising RCG strategies on gambling behaviour, gambling problems and gambling-related harm.



Most of the limited research into RCG has focused on setting monetary and time limits. Some research has attempted to establish low-risk gambling frequency and expenditure limits, and other studies have explored use and adherence to self-imposed gambling limits. A few studies have examined self-regulatory strategies used by gamblers.



Current consumer guidelines for gambling responsibly have been developed on an ad hoc basis without any evidence for their efficacy – either in isolation or combined. They are also highly variable across websites, jurisdictions, operators and help services and fail to promote a consistent set of strategies to consumers.



This dearth of knowledge of RCG stands in stark contrast to greater policy and public health emphasis on gambling responsibly. Research to develop a comprehensive set of behavioural indicators of RCG is in its infancy. Those identified in this literature review form a starting point for the content analysis of gambling-related websites, presented in the next chapter.


Page 53



Chapter four: Content analysis of websites 4.1 Introduction This chapter provides a content analysis of the websites of some major Australian and international gambling help services (n = 14), government agencies (n = 6) and industry operators (n = 10) to extend upon the list of responsible consumption of gambling (RCG) strategies developed from the literature review in Chapter Three. As explained in Chapter Two, this involved using a directed content analysis approach (Hsiu-Fang & Shannon 2005) which was conducted manually. The content was analysed to show similarities and differences between the websites in their definitions and descriptors of responsible gambling, and the behaviours they suggest consumers use in order to gamble responsibly.

4.2 Definitions of responsible gambling Websites were searched to examine if and how RG was defined. Ten of the 30 websites provided a definition of RG, including four of the 14 help service websites, five of the 10 industry websites and one of the six government websites examined (Table 4.1). Most of these explicitly referred to the term ‘responsible gambling’, although Tabcorp made mention of keeping ‘gambling safe’. The Nebraska Council website also referred to ‘responsible gambling’ alongside ‘safe’ and ‘low risk’ gambling. Table 4.1. Definitions of responsible gambling Website ACT Gambling and Racing Commission Amity Community Services Inc Australasian Gaming Council

Bet 365 Betfair Responsible Gambling Betsafe British Columbia Responsible & Problem Gambling Program

Centrebet Country Club Tasmania Crown Melbourne

Crown Perth


Responsible Gambling Definition None None Responsible gambling can be understood as providing or undertaking gambling activity in a manner whereby the potential for harm is minimised. Responsible gambling occurs in a regulated environment as a product of the collective strategies and shared commitment of industry, government, the community and individual gamblers themselves. None None None Gambling ‘responsibly’ means different things for different people. Everyone has their own idea of what ‘responsible’ and ‘safe’ and ‘fun’ look like. Regardless of what responsible gambling means to you versus someone else, common themes might exist. Some common RG themes might be that decisions about gambling are informed, money used to gamble isn’t needed for something else, players are savvy about how gambling works and aren’t subject to the common false beliefs that can get people into trouble, players have awareness about how they are feeling when they gamble to make sure that they aren’t becoming frustrated, anxious, or depressed. None None Responsible gambling occurs in a regulated environment where the potential for harm associated with gambling is minimised as customers are informed and can therefore make sensible and rational choices based on their individual circumstances. Responsible gambling occurs in an environment where the potential for harm associated with gambling is minimised and people make informed decisions about their gambling habits.

Page 54


Gamble Aware AU Gamble Aware UK

Gambling Help Online

Gambling Impact Society NSW Help Guide Nebraska Council on Compulsive Gambling

NSW Gambling Help NSW Gambling Help Workbook Problem Gambling ACT Problem Gambling SA Relationships Australia Responsible Gambling Awareness Week Responsible Gambling Council (Ontario) Salvation Army Tabcorp Tatts

Tom Waterhouse Victorian Aboriginal Community Services Association Ltd (VACSAL) Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation



None Responsible gambling means staying in control of how much time and money we spend gambling. Whether you are buying a lottery ticket or scratch-card, placing a bet, playing poker or bingo, or playing on a gambling machine or casino game, gambling responsibly means treating the activity as just one form of entertainment in a balanced lifestyle. Just like with other forms of entertainment, gambling is a form of expenditure, and responsible gambling means not spending more money or time than we can reasonably afford, keeping in mind all our other responsibilities in life. Responsible gambling means being able to exercise control over your gambling activity and not let it negatively impact other areas of your life. Responsible gambling is when you:  Are in control of how much time and money you are spending  See gambling as a form of entertainment  Don’t bet more than you can afford to lose  Know and accept the odds  Keep sight of your chances of winning None None Responsible gambling is legal wagering for entertainment only, with limits on time played and money spent for a low risk of harm to self and others. Safe, or low-risk, gambling is being able to play with little chance of losing control or developing unhealthy or unsafe habits that could lead to problematic gambling. None None None None None None None None Keeping gambling safe means knowing what your limits are both in terms of money and time and knowing when to walk away. Responsible play involves being informed, having fun and knowing your limits. Responsible gambling occurs in an environment where people make informed and rational decisions about their participation in gambling, based on their own individual circumstances. Responsible gambling occurs as a result of the collective strategies and shared responsibility of individuals, communities, the gambling industry and the Government, to achieve outcomes that are socially responsible and responsive to community concerns. None None

Responsible gambling for the individual means:  Gambling for pleasure and entertainment while being aware of the likelihood of losing  Understanding the risks involved  Exercising control over gambling activity  Responsible gambling occurs in balance with other activities in their lives and is not causing problems of harm for themselves or others. Responsible gambling for the community, providers, governments and sporting associations requires:  Shared responsibility for generating awareness of the risks associated with gambling  Creating and promoting environments that prevent or minimise problem gambling  Responding to community concerns around gambling.

Page 55



Table 4.2 tallies the mentions of different constructs in the definitions of RG where they were provided on the government (G), industry (I) and help service (HS) websites examined. Those relating to RCG are presented in blue font, while those relating to RPG are in black font.

Gambling within/setting affordable limits of time and money spent on gambling; only gambling with discretionary funds Gambling for pleasure/entertainment/fun Exercising control over gambling

Australasian Gaming Council

Crown Melbourne

Crown Perth

Tabcorp

Tatts

British Columbia Responsible & Problem Gambling Program

Gamble Aware UK


Nebraska Council

G

I

I

I

I

I

HS

HS

HS

HS













6





4





4



4







 

Harm minimisation Informed decision-making Knowing the odds/the likelihood of losing/winning Gambling in balance with other activities Harm prevention



Understanding the risks involved




















3





2 

2 1



1 

Avoiding problem gambling

Environments that prevent or minimise problem gambling Responding to community concerns around gambling Generating awareness of the risks associated with gambling Being socially responsible

4



Knowing when to walk away Not having erroneous gambling beliefs Not gambling when frustrated, anxious or depressed Shared responsibility of industry, government, the community and individual gambler Regulated/legal environment





  

No. of sites


Table 4.2. Frequency of different constructs in website definitions of responsible gambling

1



1





3





1



3 2





2 1



1

Page 56



The most common construct relating to RCG was included in six of the definitions: Gambling within affordable limits of time and money, with one definition expressing this as only gambling with discretionary funds. Four websites included each of the constructs of: Gambling for pleasure/entertainment/fun; exercising control over gambling; harm minimisation; and informed decision-making. Three websites included knowing the odds/the likelihood of losing/winning in their definitions, while two websites included each of the constructs of gambling in balance with other activities and harm prevention. Only one website noted each of the five remaining constructs that related to RCG: Understanding the risks involved in gambling; knowing when to walk away from gambling; avoiding problem gambling; not having erroneous gambling beliefs; and not gambling when frustrated, anxious or depressed. The most common constructs relating to RPG were included in three of the definitions: That RG is a shared responsibility of industry, government, the community and individual gamblers; and that it occurs in a legal, regulated environment. Two definitions included environments that prevent or minimise problem gambling, and responding to community concerns around gambling, as constructs relating to RPG. One website included each of the remaining constructs: Generating awareness of the risks associated with gambling, and being socially responsible. These results reflect a wide variation in the constructs considered fundamental to RG as expressed through these definitions. When taken together, the definitions of RCG encompassed controlled gambling for entertainment (and not for mood regulation) within affordable limits by consumers who are informed about the game, the odds and the risks involved, with their gambling being in balance with other activities they engage in – in order to prevent or minimise gambling harm and avoid problem gambling. Some definitions also included roles for industry and governments to facilitate RCG through taking a shared responsibility for RG, and providing regulated environments that prevent or minimise problem gambling, generate awareness of the risks associated with gambling, and respond to community concerns around gambling in a socially responsible manner.

4.3 Responsible gambling strategies The analysis identified and assigned the RCG strategies suggested on the 30 websites into the nine categories identified in Chapter Three (Table 3.2). Additional strategies relevant to each category, beyond those identified in Chapter Three, were added as they were identified on the websites. The results of the content analysis are presented below (with details in Appendix C) for each of the nine categories of RCG strategies and according to type of website: Government, industry or help service website.

4.3.1 Managing overall finances Strategies in this category are those which individuals can use prior to gambling to better manage their overall finances to help ensure that the expenditure they allocate to gambling is affordable. The seven items contained in Table 4.3 were identified during the literature review (Chapter Three). Only three of these items were included on any of the government websites examined, two were included on industry websites and five were included on help service websites. Generally, only few sites included each of the identified strategies.


Page 57



Table 4.3. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to managing overall finances Strategy

Government websites n=6

Industry websites n = 10

Help service websites n = 14

N

%

N

%

N

%

Reduce limits of credit cards Pay bills and groceries before gambling Cut up credit cards

2

33.3

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

1

10.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Get a credit card without a PIN so money cannot be drawn from an ATM Have bill payments withdrawn automatically from bank account Require two signatures to withdraw money Set financial goals

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

16.6

0

0.0

4

28.6

1

16.6

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

1

10.0

1

7.1

An additional 17 strategies to manage overall finances, not identified during the literature review, were proposed amongst the 30 websites. Help service websites included various items that were not included on other websites, such as having debit rather than credit cards, and transferring assets to a partner’s name. The most common recommendations were to use money that is specifically allocated to entertainment funds (rather than money for necessities) and keeping a gambling diary (Table 4.4).


Page 58



Table 4.4. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to managing overall finances Strategy

Government websites n=6 N %

Industry websites n = 10

Help service websites n = 14 N %

N

%

Gamble with money only from your weekly entertainment budget, not using money for necessities Keeping a gambling diary

2

33.3

3

30.0

5

35.7

3

50.0

3

30.0

7

50.0

Cancel credit cards

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

14.3

Ask someone else to manage your money Have wage paid directly into bank account Do not have an ATM or bank card Pay bills electronically, not in cash Set a weekly entertainment budget Use a debit card instead of a credit card online Check your history and card statements Have a debit rather than credit cards Get wages paid into a separate account Transfer assets to partners name Mail your credit card to yourself after buying essentials to give yourself two days thinking time Set transfer limits

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

14.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

1

16.6

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

1

10

0

0.0

Wages paid directly into bank account Wages collected by spouse

1

16.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

16.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

For more detail about which government, industry and help services websites endorsed each item, please see Tables C.1 to C.6 in Appendix C.

4.3.2 Monetary limits on gambling Setting monetary limits on gambling expenditure has been suggested in the literature, as well as on gambling-related websites, to encourage RCG. Twenty-two such items were identified during the literature review (Table 4.5). The most commonly cited items on the websites were gamble only what is affordable, do not borrow to gamble, working out how much you can afford to lose before going out, not chasing losses, setting monetary limits before leaving home, leaving ATM cards at home, and keeping a gambling budget and stopping gambling once it is lost.


Page 59



Table 4.5. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to monetary limits Strategy


Industry websites n = 10 N %


Gamble only what is affordable

4

66.7

6

60.0

7

50.0

Use discretionary income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Only take a certain amount of money to gamble Before going, work out how much money you can afford to lose Set a win/loss limit

1

16.7

1

10.0

3

21.4

3

50.0

0

0.0

5

35.7

1

16.7

2

20.0

0

0.0

Set monetary limits before leaving home/before gambling Keep a gambling budget and leave the venue once it is lost Spend no more than CAN $501–1000 per year on gambling Spend no more than 1–1.9% of income on gambling Do not borrow money to gamble

2

33.3

2

20.0

11

78.6

4

66.7

3

30.0

5

35.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

3

50.0

4

40.0

6

42.9

Do not chase gambling losses

4

66.7

8

80.0

9

64.3

Leave ATM cards at home

4

66.7

1

10.0

7

50.0

Do not use ATMs to withdraw more money Ask someone else to hold bank/credit cards while at the gambling venue Ask a reliable person to hold your money while at the gambling venue Ask your friends not to lend you money while at the gambling venue Separate gambling money from other money by using different pockets Move a portion of gambling chips out of sight to reduce temptation Play only low denomination EGMs

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Spend only coins

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Set limits of bets per EGM spin

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Only play with winnings

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

An additional 15 strategies were identified from the websites examined that were not identified during the literature review. Most of these were identified by one site, although five sites specifically included the item ‘reduce your access to cash’ (Table 4.6).


Page 60



Table 4.6. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to monetary limits Strategy


Industry websites n = 10 N

%


Do not use credit cards to gamble

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

14.3

Only keep small amounts of cash on you Do not change bets at the last minute

1

16.7

0

0.0

1

7.1

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

Do not bet on every race

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

Buy small amounts of change when playing EGMs Make a rule to cash out credit above a certain amount Hold onto all or a portion of your winnings Reduce your access to cash

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

16.7

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

2

33.3

0

0.0

3

21.4

Only carry as much cash as you need for the day Keep track of bets

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Use online sites with daily spend limits

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Set deposit limits

0

0.0

1

10.0

0

0.0

Never increase your bet when losing

0

0.0

1

10.0

0

0.0

Do not chase wins

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

Only play one EGM at a time

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

For more detail about which government, industry and help services websites endorsed each item, please see Appendix C, Tables C.7 to C.12.

4.3.3 Time restrictions on gambling In addition to monetary restrictions, limiting the amount of time spent gambling has also been proposed to encourage RCG. This includes setting a limit on time spent gambling, being aware of the passage of time while gambling, and planning for how to stick to these limits. Seven strategies were identified during the literature review and two of them were commonly reported on the audited websites. These were setting time limits on play and taking frequent breaks (Table 4.7).


Page 61



Table 4.7. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to time restrictions Strategy




Set time limits on play

3

50.0

6

60.0

10

71.4

Gamble no more than 2–3 times per month Take frequent breaks

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

3

50.0

3

30.0

8

57.1

Go to venues only at set intervals/times Arrive at the venue a short time before closing Gamble no more than 1.5 hours a month Instruct the doorman not to let them in again that day

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

The audit revealed an additional eight strategies related to time restrictions. The more common strategies were setting an alarm, having access to a watch or clock, and setting time limits in advance (Table 4.8). Table 4.8. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to time restrictions Strategy



%


Set an alarm

1

16.7

0

0.0

4

28.6

When you arrive at the venue, talk to someone/delay your gambling by 30 minutes. Have access to a watch or clock

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

20.0

2

14.3

Bet on a game before not during the event Do not bet too quickly

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Set time limits in advance

0

0.0

2

20.0

3

21.4

Track the amount of time spent gambling Postpone gambling by telling yourself to wait

0

0.0

1

10.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1



Page 62



4.3.4 Taking an informed approach to gambling Six strategies relating to taking an informed approach to gambling were identified during the literature review. The most commonly reported during the audit was not drinking or taking illicit substances while gambling, and to expect to lose and see winning as a bonus (Table 4.9). Table 4.9. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to taking an informed approach to gambling Strategy



%


Think about what else the money could buy Do not drink/take substances when gambling Remind self of the negative consequences of gambling Know the risks of gambling

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

3

50.0

4

40.0

11

78.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

14.3

Expect to lose and see winning as a bonus Research a bet well

3

50.0

0

0.0

3

21.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

An additional 19 items related to an informed approach to gambling were identified during the analysis. The most common of these were knowing the odds and exercising control over gambling (Table 4.10).


Page 63



Table 4.10. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to taking an informed approach to gambling Strategy




Exercise control over gambling

3

50.0

3

30.0

2

14.3

Gamble in a way which does not cause harm or problems for other individuals Know that you cannot win in the long run Know the odds

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

10

2

14.3

2

33.3

2

20.0

4

28.6

Do not believe the feeling that you can tell when an EGM is going to pay out Be aware of thoughts such as ‘I am lucky/on a winning streak’ Think of the people who need your support Make sure gambling does not take priority over friends, work, school and family Do not overestimate your abilities

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

1

10

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Calculate how long you have to work to earn that money Read fine print on promotions

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Learn about the chose gambling activity Know the warning signs

1

16.7

1

10.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

1

10.0

0

0.0

Do not gamble when recovering from any other form of dependency Do not gamble when taking certain medications (consult your GP) Have realistic expectations about the likely outcome of gambling Think about how you will feel after all the money is gone Consider losses the cost of recreation

0

0.0

2

20.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

20.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Realize that knowing more will not guarantee a win

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1


4.3.5 Avoiding opportunities to gamble Three strategies related to avoiding gambling opportunities were identified during the literature review. Two of these (not driving past their favourite gambling venues, and placing bets at the TAB and then leaving to watch the match at home) were each identified by just one website. Four websites identified avoiding venues that have gambling facilities altogether (Table 4.11).


Page 64



Table 4.11. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to avoid gambling opportunities Strategy




Avoid venues which have gambling facilities Place bets at TAB and leave to watch the match at home Do not drive past favourite gambling venues

1

16.7

0

0.0

3

21.4

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

An additional 13 strategies were identified in this category, mostly from help service websites. All of these items were identified by only one website, with the exception of ‘walk away when limits are reached’, which was identified on three websites (Table 4.12). Table 4.12. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to avoid gambling opportunities Strategy




Walk away when limits are reached

0

0.0

1

10.0

2

14.3

Collect winnings when races are over the next day Avoid jobs handling cash

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

Quit while ahead

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Avoid high risk situations

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Do not use multiple online gaming accounts Do not gamble with friends that gamble heavily Stop wearing shoes

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Wear jeans into the city

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Keep children with you

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Remove gambling pages from newspaper before reading Block online gambling sites

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Arrange transport ahead of time and have a back-up plan

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1



Page 65



4.3.6 Motivations for gambling Some motivations for gambling may be more likely to facilitate RCG than others, as discussed in Chapter Three. A notable difference was apparent between the motivations proposed to encourage RCG in the literature search, compared to those identified by websites. Three motivations were proposed in the literature; however only one of these (gamble for entertainment, not to make money), was endorsed by the gambling-related websites audited. Table 4.13. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to motivations for gambling Strategy




Gamble for entertainment, not to make money Do not be influenced by gambling promotions Avoid betting on hot tips

3

50.0

8

80.0

7

50.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

An additional eight strategies were identified during the audit, with the most common responses being ‘do not gamble when depressed, stressed, bored or upset’. Most of the other items were endorsed by only one or two websites (Table 4.14). Table 4.14. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to motivations for gambling Strategy




Do not gamble when depressed, stressed, bored or upset Do not take gambling too seriously

1

16.7

2

20.0

8

1

16.7

2

20.0

0

0.0

Remember that gambling is a game

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

14.3

See gambling as a game not a job

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Do not bet in the heat of the moment

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

Do not give in to peer pressure when gambling Challenge your thoughts and beliefs

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

Do not gamble to pay bills

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

14.3

57.1



Page 66



4.3.7 Using social support The literature review highlighted two RCG strategies that are related to social support. One of these (verbally announcing limits to others) was endorsed by one help service website only, while gambling with others was endorsed by nine websites (Table 4.15). Table 4.15. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to using social supports Strategy




Gamble with others

3

50.0

0

0.0

6

42.9

Verbally announce limits to others

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

An additional four strategies were identified during the content analysis, with each of these items endorsed on only one or two of the websites examined (Table 4.16). Table 4.16. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to using additional social supports Strategy




Have someone in your life who you can talk to openly about gambling Ask a friend to call you at a designated time and remind you to leave Develop a support network

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

14.3

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

Call someone if you have the urge to gamble

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

14.3


4.3.8 Using help services Two strategies relating to using help services were identified during the literature review. These were by far the most commonly reported strategies from the content analysis of websites, with every website examined promoting that gamblers should ‘seek professional help if required’. Selfexclusion as a form of help was also promoted by most websites (Table 4.17).


Page 67



Table 4.17. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to using help services Strategy




Self-exclude from gaming venues

5

83.3

10

100.0

10

66.7

Seek professional help if required

6

100

10

100.0

15

100.0

Only one additional strategy was identified in this category, which was to block and exclude from gambling websites, as well as download software that excludes from betting on any website (Table 4.18). Table 4.18. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to using help services Strategy




Block and exclude themselves from gambling websites by downloading software

1

0

0

10.0

0.0

0.0


4.3.9 Engaging in other activities Five items related to engaging in activities other than gambling were identified during the literature review. The more commonly endorsed strategies on the websites were to balance gambling with other leisure activities, to plan an activity for afterwards to be forced to stop gambling, and to distract oneself with other activities (Table 4.19). Table 4.19. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each strategy relating to engaging in other activities Strategy




Balance gambling with other leisure activities Book social obligations at times when you may want to gamble Plan an activity for afterward to be forced to stop gambling Reduce frequency of play by engaging in other activities Distract self with other activities

3

50.0

2

20.0

7

50.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

7.1

1

16.7

0

0.0

3

21.4

1

16.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

16.7

0

0.0

3

21.4

An additional three strategies were identified during the content analysis, with each of these items endorsed by one or two of the websites examined (Table 4.20).


Page 68



Table 4.20. Number and percentage of each type of website reporting each additional strategy relating to engaging in other activities Strategy




Gamble in moderation

0

0.0

1

10.0

0

0.0

Do not let gambling interfere with daily responsibilities Schedule additional recreational activities into routine

0

0.0

2

20.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

14.3


4.5 Chapter conclusion A total of 126 RCG strategies for consumers were identified from the content analysis of the websites. The number of strategies listed by individual websites ranged from 2 to 43, with websites promoting an average of 16.56 strategies. When the list of strategies derived from the websites was compared to that developed in the literature review, it was found that one or more websites identified 38 of the total 57 behaviours identified in Table 3.2. Thus, an additional 88 specific strategies were suggested by the websites which were not identified in the literature review. Table 4.21 summarises the number of strategies promoted per type of website (government, industry or help service), and the proportion of the total number of strategies promoted per RCG category of strategies. Key findings are that: 

The most commonly promoted strategies across the three types of websites related to monetary limits on gambling, followed by taking an informed approach to gambling, and managing overall finances, respectively.



The least promoted strategies across the three types of websites related to using social support and using help services.



The strategies most promoted across the government websites related to monetary limits on gambling, followed by managing overall finances, time restrictions on gambling and taking an informed approach to gambling.



The strategies most promoted across the industry websites related to monetary limits on gambling, followed by taking an informed approach to gambling.



The strategies most promoted across the help service websites related to managing overall finances, followed by monetary limits on gambling, taking an informed approach to gambling, and avoiding opportunities to gamble.


Page 69



Table 4.21. Number of strategies and percentage of strategies promoted per type of website Strategy

Government websites n=6 N* %**

Industry websites n = 10 N* %**

Managing overall finances

8

33.3

5

Monetary limits on gambling

16

43.2

Time restrictions on gambling

7

46.7

Taking an informed approach to gambling Avoiding opportunities to gamble

7

Help service websites n = 14 N*

%**

20.8

19

79.2

10

27.0

18

48.6

5

33.3

8

53.3

28.0

9

36.0

18

72.0

4

25.0

1

6.3

13

81.3

Motivations for gambling

4

36.4

3

27.3

7

53.8

Using social support

3

50.0

0

0.0

4

66.7

Using help services

3

100.0

2

66.7

2

66.7

Engaging in other activities

4

50.0

3

37.5

5

71.4

* N = the number of strategies within each category promoted per type of website. ** % = the % of the total number of strategies promoted in this category of strategy.

Of the strategies reported on the websites, a number were frequently endorsed. All websites suggested that individuals contact professional services if they were concerned about their gambling and wanted to speak with someone. Setting both monetary and time limits was also frequently referred to by most websites, along with chasing losses, taking frequent breaks, gambling within affordable means, not borrowing money, not drinking alcohol or taking substances while gambling, self-excluding from venues, and gambling for the purposes of entertainment not to win money. Strategies endorsed by five or more websites are listed in Table 4.22. Of these, the suggestions to exercise control over gambling, gamble only with money from an entertainment allowance, not gambling when emotional, knowing the odds and keeping a gambling diary were not strategies which were identified in the literature review, yet were frequently endorsed by websites. Monetary and time limits were strongly supported by the websites. However, specific amounts or guidelines were not provided for consumers to determine what may or may not be an appropriate amount of time or money to spend gambling. While this may reflect that individual consumers have different levels of affordability for both time and money, it may also reflect that validated limits have not yet been established in the Australian context. The only monetary value mentioned was proposed by Relationships Australia, encouraging consumers to set a rule to cash out EGM credits above $100. Additionally, it was clear that some strategies proposed were relatively broad while others were more specific. Seven websites made the general suggestion that individuals exercise control over their gambling as a means of ensuring they were gambling responsibly (Crown Melbourne, Crown Perth, Gambling Impact Society NSW, Problem Gambling ACT, Tabcorp, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Salvation Army). Other general suggestions included encouraging consumers to ‘gamble in moderation’ (Betfair) and to not take gambling too seriously (Crown Melbourne, Crown Perth, Problem Gambling ACT). More specific strategies such as cash out credits over $100 (Relationships Australia), playing only one poker machine at once (Betsafe), cancelling credit cards (Gambling Impact Society NSW, Relationships Australia), and delaying gambling by 30 minutes when at the gaming venue (NSW Gambling Help Workbook) may be easier for consumers to implement and adhere to. Table 4.22. Frequency of commonly reported responsible gambling strategies


Page 70


Strategy


No. of times reported 30

% of websites 100.0

Self-exclude from gambling venues

24

80.0

Do not chase losses

21

70.0

Gamble for entertainment, not to make money

19

63.3


19

63.3

Do not drink alcohol or use substances while gambling

18

60.0


17

56.7

Set monetary limits before leaving home/before gambling

15

50.0

Take frequent breaks

14

46.7

Do not borrow money to gamble

13

43.3

Keep a gambling diary

13

43.3

Balance gambling with other leisure activities

12

40.0


12

40.0

Keep a gambling budget and leave once it is lost

12

40.0

Do not gamble when upset, stressed, depressed or bored

11

36.7

Gamble only with money that is from your weekly entertainment allowance, not using money for necessities Gamble with others

10

33.3

9

30.0

Know the odds

8

26.7

Exercise control over gambling

7

23.3

Expect to lose and see winning as a bonus

6

20.0

Have bill payments withdrawn automatically from bank account

5

16.7

Only take a certain amount of money to gamble

5

16.7

Reduce your access to cash

5

16.7


Additionally, some RG strategies proposed may be more appropriate and beneficial for those who have gambling-related problems, but may not be as applicable to those who do not. For example, strategies such as not wearing shoes when out as bare feet are not permitted in gambling venues, or not wearing jeans when in the city as they are not permitted in casinos, are strategies which may be more applicable to individuals with gambling difficulties. Further research is required to identify whether the applicability of RCG strategies differs for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers. That is, RCG strategies that are most beneficial for consumer protection to prevent gambling harm, and those which support harm minimisation to reduce gambling harm, lack clarity on the websites examined (as well as in the literature). The next chapter presents expert views on these issues. As these websites represent important sources of information for consumers to help them maintain and/or regain control over there gambling, it is important that the strategies which are suggested do in fact facilitate RCG and are evidence-based. To date, little research has been conducted to identify which RCG strategies are effective, and whether they differ in effectiveness according to level of gambling risk. While this study was not funded to validate these strategies, its development of a preliminary set of RCG behaviours is an important step in this direction. In addition, future policy, practice and research would benefit from the adoption of a consistent definition of RCG and its underlying principles; development of specific behavioural indicators of RCG which have been validated for their efficacy; and promotion of these behaviours in a consistent manner across websites and other media.


Page 71



Chapter five: Expert survey 5.1 Introduction This chapter presents results from the online survey of 107 experts. The first section summarises responses in relation to defining responsible gambling consumption (RCG) and identifying its essential goals and objectives. The next sections focus on the importance of the seven categories of RCG behaviours, followed by the overall importance, and importance to non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers, of each specific behaviour within each category. These importance ratings are then summarised for each of these three groups of gamblers. Later sections in this chapter present results from numerous questions designed to assess expert views on: The relationship between adherence to RCG behaviours and gambling-related harm; the concept of RG; who RCG messages and guidelines should target; promotion of RG messages; whose responsibility it is to ensure people gamble responsibly; RCG limits; and potential concerns with RG.

5.2 Defining responsible gambling consumption and its objectives Respondents’ views on defining RCG and its underlying objectives or goals were captured through open-ended responses, as well as a fixed-response question.

Open-ended responses Respondents were asked to define the term ‘responsible consumption of gambling’ (‘that is, what it means to gamble responsibly’) in their own words, and to identify what they consider to be the essential goals or objectives of RCG. There was considerable overlap in responses to these two open-ended questions, so these results are combined to avoid redundancy. The most common theme was affordability, keeping to limits or gambling within one’s means. This theme was mentioned by 68 of the 107 respondents who answered this question. All of these 68 respondents discussed financial limits, while approximately one-third also discussed time limits. Typical examples were: ‘Gambling within reasonable limits of time and money’, or ‘gambling what you can afford’. A related theme was the ability to maintain control over one’s gambling, such as sticking to set limits. This was highlighted by the response ‘Gambling within the financial, behavioural and physical means of that individual in a controlled and non excessive manner.’ The theme of control was mentioned by approximately 20 respondents. Another theme was about avoiding harm. Sixty-one respondents described RG as gambling in such a way that the gambler experiences no harm at all from their actions. One example was ‘Gambling in a manner that does not adversely impact other aspects of the gambler’s life’. A further two respondents indicated that the aim was to minimise harm, rather than completely negate any harms. These comments were: ‘Gambling in a manner that minimizes adverse consequences’ and ‘Where the gambling causes… adverse effects [that] are only minimally or temporarily experienced and able to be addressed and rectified relatively easily without seeking professional help…’.


Page 72



Forty-three respondents specifically mentioned that RG also means no harm to those around the gambler, such as significant others or other social contacts. One example was: ‘To gamble safely and responsibly, without incurring significant harms, disruptions, and problems in the life of the consumer or the gambler’s significant others.’ One final theme was the motivation for gambling, with 28 respondents stating that RCG means gambling for entertainment rather than to make money, as highlighted by the following definition: ‘Gambling that is appropriate to income, that does not interfere with other responsibilities and activities and that is geared at entertainment rather than making money’. Three respondents stated that they believed that RCG is not possible unless RPG is also adhered to, such as ‘playing games that are honestly run with fair and reasonable odds and payouts as a pastime with discretionary funds that can afford to be lost’. A further two respondents stated that they did not believe that RCG is possible. One stated, ‘this is a term used by industry to transfer responsibility to those adversely affected by gambling harm. It is goalless, meaningless and largely used as a means of stigmatising those adversely affected’, while the other stated that ‘Responsible consumption of gambling seems like a misnomer to me in the current gambling environment. To me there should be consumer protection in place and the industry should be regulated to provide responsible service of gambling’. The latter respondent went on to acknowledge that RCG should be possible (‘i.e., spending what you can afford to lose’), but in their experience it is not.

Essential goals and objectives of responsible gambling consumption Respondents were asked which of 18 terms and concepts were, in their opinion, essential goals or objectives of RCG. A series of repeated measures (McNemar) tests were run to determine which answers were endorsed by a significantly higher proportion of respondents. The most popular terms were ‘gambling within an individual’s affordable limits of time, money and other resources’ (86.0 per cent), followed by ‘keeping gambling in balance with other activities and priorities’ (76.6 per cent). The second tier of responses were ‘exercising informed choice about gambling’, ‘understanding the risks associated with gambling’, ‘staying in control of gambling’, ‘absence of gambling-related harm’, ‘adhering to pre-set time and money limits when gambling’ and ‘an enjoyable/pleasurable gambling experience’. All of these items were endorsed by between 56.1 per cent and 68.2 per cent of respondents. Items with the lowest levels of endorsement referred to gambling that enhances or sustains wellbeing, having no concerns about gambling and for gamblers to be responsible for their own gambling behaviour. For more responses, see Figure 5.1. For statistical results, see Table D.1 in Appendix D.


Page 73



100 90 80

Percentage

70 60 50 86

40

76.6 68.2 67.3 62.6 60.7 58.9

30

56.1

53.3

49.5

46.7

20

43.9 42.1 37.2 24.3 22.4 22.4

10

Gambling that enhances wellbeing

Gambling that sustains wellbeing

Having no concerns about your gambling

For gamblers to be responsible for their own gambling behaviour

Low risk gambling

Avoiding developing a gambling problem

Non-problem gambling

Minimisation of gambling-related harm

Avoiding risky gambling behaviours

Self-regulating one’s own gambling

Adhering to pre-set time and money limits when gambling An enjoyable/pleasurable gambling experience

Absence of gambling-related harm

Staying in control of gambling

Understanding the risks associated with gambling

Exercising informed choice about gambling

Gambling within an individual’s affordable limits of time, money and other resources Keeping gambling in balance with other activities and priorities

0

15.9

Figure 5.1. Percentage of experts who endorsed each term or concept that has been associated with RCG Note: Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (McNemar tests, p < 0.05) analyses.

5.3 Importance of categories of RCG behaviours Respondents were asked how important seven categories of behaviours are in terms of RCG. The category rated as the most important was ‘ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’, followed by ‘keeping gambling in balance’ and ‘limiting persistence at gambling’ (Figure 5.2). The category of behaviours rated as the least important was ‘a planned approach to gambling’; however all categories were rated as at least moderately important. For statistical results, see Table D.2.


Page 74



Rating of Importance

5

4

3

4.65

4.36

4.34

4.15

4.02

3.82 3.36

2

A planned approach to gambling (e.g. scheduling gambling sessions and not gambling outside of these sessions, avoiding impulse betting)

“Positive” motivations for gambling (e.g. gambling for entertainment rather than to make money, avoiding gambling to relieve boredom or when depressed or upset)

Understanding gambling (e.g. understanding the role of chance, knowing the odds, expecting to lose in the long run)

Use help and support if needed (e.g. use self-exclusion and professional help)

Limiting persistence at gambling (e.g. setting and adhering to time and money limits when gambling)

Keeping gambling in balance (e.g. prioritising responsibilities to friends and family, engaging in activities other than gambling)

Ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable (e.g. only gambling with disposable income, limiting access to cash)

1

Figure 5.2. Mean (and SE) rated importance of seven behavioural categories in terms of RCG behaviour Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

5.4 ‘Ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’ category Importance of specific behaviours All behaviours in this category were seen as at least moderately important. Behaviours rated the most important were: ‘Only gamble with money that is not needed for necessities’ and ‘avoid borrowing money or getting money on credit card to gamble with’, followed by ‘only gamble what you can afford to lose’. Setting an affordable gambling budget was also seen as very important. (Figure 5.3). See Table D.3 for statistical results.


Page 75



5


4

3 4.59

4.57

4.34

4.17

4.00

3.87

3.74

2

1 Only gamble Avoid Only gamble with money borrowing what you can that is not money or afford to lose needed for getting money necessities credit such as bills, (including rent, food, etc credit cards) to gamble with

Set an affordable gambling budget

Set deposit Limit access to Use only limits for cash when online Internet gambling, gambling gambling such as by websites with accounts leaving bank daily spend cards at home limits or giving your wallet t...

Figure 5.3. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

Importance of specific behaviours for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers Almost all items in this category had a mean of 4 or more for both at-risk and problem gamblers, indicating that all were seen as between very and extremely important for these gamblers. All behaviours in this category were seen as significantly less important for non-problem gamblers compared to both at-risk and problem gamblers, particularly ‘limit access to cash when gambling’ and ‘use only online gambling websites with daily spend limits’. Setting deposit limits for Internet gambling accounts, setting an affordable gambling budget and avoid borrowing money (including credit) to gamble with were also seen as less important for non-problem gamblers. All but two of the items (‘only gamble what you can afford to lose’ and ‘only gamble with money that is not needed for necessities’) were seen as significantly more important for problem gamblers than for at-risk gamblers. See Figure 5.4 for more details and Table D.4 for statistical results.


Page 76


✻

5

✻✻


✻

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻


✻✻ 4

3

4.67 4.76 4.33

4.72 4.11

4.89

4.67

4.52 4.59

4.71

4.52

4.40

4.20

3.44

3.27

2

4.27

4.17

3.92

3.93 3.03

2.73

1 Only gamble Avoid Only gamble with money borrowing what you can that is not money or afford to lose needed for getting money necessities, on credit such as bills, (including rent, food, etc credit cards) to gamble with

NP

Set an affordable gambling budget

AR

Set deposit Limit access to Use only online limits for cash when gambling Internet gambling, such websites with gambling as by leaving daily spend accounts bank cards at limits home or giving your wallet to someone you trust

PG

Figure 5.4. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). NP = non-problem gamblers, AR = atrisk gamblers, PG = problem gamblers. * indicates that the rated importance for non-problem gamblers is significantly lower than for at-risk and problem gamblers, with the latter two groups not differing significantly for that item. ** indicates that the rated importance differs significantly between all three levels of problem gambling for that item. All tests based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

5.5 ‘Keeping gambling in balance’ category Importance of specific behaviours All behaviours in this category were considered very to extremely important, with one behaviour being seen as more important than the others: ‘Ensure that you gamble in a way that does not cause harm or problems for other individuals’. See Figure 5.5 for further details and Table D.5 for statistical results.


Page 77



5


4

3 4.46

4.39

4.29

4.22

4.21

2

1 Ensure that you Ensure that gambling Ensure that gambling Engage in other Prioritise your gamble in a way that doesn’t dominate yourdoesn’t dominate your leisure activities, responsibilities (e.g., does not cause harm to family, friends, leisure time thoughts when you hobbies or interests or problems for other other than gambling work, study) over are not gambling individuals gambling

Figure 5.5. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘keeping gambling in balance’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

Importance of specific behaviours for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers All items were seen as very to extremely important for at-risk and problem gamblers. For nonproblem gamblers, all items were seen as significantly less important than they were for at-risk and problem gamblers, although ‘ensure that you gamble in a way that does not cause harm or problems for other individuals’ was seen as very to extremely important for non-problem gamblers. Significant differences between the rated importance for at-risk and problem gamblers were observed for two items: ‘Prioritise your responsibilities over gambling’ and ‘engage in other leisure activities’. See Figure 5.6 for further details and Table D.6 for statistical results.


Page 78


5

✻


✻

✻

✻✻

✻✻


4

3 4.57 4.64

4.45 4.58

4.44 4.57

4.34

4.18 3.86

3.84

4.56

3.75

4.35

4.59

3.70

2

1

Ensure that you Engage in other Ensure that Ensure that gamble in a way gambling doesn’t gambling doesn’t leisure activities, that does not hobbies or dominate your dominate your cause harm or leisure time thoughts when you interests other problems for other than gambling are not gambling individuals NP

AR

PG

Prioritise your responsibilities (e.g., to family, friends, work, study) over gambling

Figure 5.6. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘keeping gambling in balance’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). NP = non-problem gamblers, AR = atrisk gamblers, PG = problem gamblers. * indicates that the rated importance for non-problem gamblers is significantly lower than for at-risk and problem gamblers, with the latter two groups not differing significantly for that item. ** indicates that the rated importance differs significantly between all three levels of problem gambling for that item. All tests based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

5.6 ‘Limiting persistence at gambling’ category Importance of specific behaviours All behaviours in this category were seen as at least moderately important, apart from ‘engage in an activity other than gambling when first arriving at a venue’. The most important behaviour in this category was ‘avoid chasing losses when gambling’, followed by ‘avoid increasing bets when losing’ and ‘set and stick to a limit on how much money you spend when you gamble’. ‘Set and stick to a limit on how often you gamble’ and ‘avoid increasing bets when winning’ were also seen as between very and extremely important. Less important behaviours, apart from ‘engaging in an activity other than gambling when first arriving at a venue’, were to ‘keep a record of your gambling’ and ‘avoid betting on a gambling outcome during the event’, although they were still seen as between moderately and very important. See Figure 5.7 for further details and Table D.7 for statistical results.


Page 79


2 3.79 3.52

Engage in an activity other than gambling when first arriving at a gambling venue

3.82

Set and stick to a limit on your maximum bet size when you gamble

Set and stick to a limit on how long you gamble for each session

Avoid increasing bets when winning

Set and stick to a limit on how often you gamble

4.03

Avoid betting on a gambling outcome during the event, only beforehand (e.g. for sports betting)

3.88 4.06

Keep a record of your gambling (frequency, session length and/or expenditure)

1 4.20

Set and stick to a limit on how much money you spend when you gamble

2 4.34

Cash out all or a portion of winnings and don’t gamble those winnings later in the session

3.88

Take frequent breaks when gambling

4.57

Avoid increasing bets when losing

Avoid chasing losses when gambling

Rating of Importance 3

Avoid having multiple online gambling accounts

Avoid betting on every race/sport/other gambling outcome


Behavioural indicators of responsible gambling consumption Hing, Russell & Hronis

5

4

3.95 3.90

5

4

3

3.52 2.69

1

Figure 5.7. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘limiting persistence at gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour

Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). Bars with different colours are

significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05)

analyses.

Page 80



Importance of specific behaviours for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers All but one item in this category were seen as between very and extremely important for problem gamblers, as were all but three for at-risk gamblers. The item that was seen as relatively unimportant was ‘engage in an activity other than gambling when first arriving at a gambling venue’ (Figure 5.8). All behaviours were rated as significantly less important for non-problem gamblers. The most important item for non-problem gamblers was ‘avoid chasing losses when gambling’. Items that were relatively unimportant for non-problem gamblers were: ‘Engage in an activity other than gambling when first arriving at a gambling venue’, ‘keep a record of your gambling’ and ‘avoid betting on a gambling outcome during the event, only beforehand’. All but one behaviour (‘avoid chasing losses when gambling’) were rated as being significantly more important for problem gamblers than for at-risk gamblers. See Figure 5.8 for details and Table D.8 for statistical results.

✻

5

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻


4

3

4.75 4.84

4.51

4.69

4.66

4.64

4.44

4.33

4.13

4.23

4.51

4.42

4.23

4.11

3.83 3.47

3.45

3.22

2

3.09

3.24


AR

PG

Set and stick to a limit on your maximum bet size

NP


Avoid increasing bets when winning

Set and stick to a limit on how often you gamble


Avoid increasing bets when losing

Avoid chasing losses

1

Page 81

4.35



5

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

4

✻✻ 4.1 4.28

4.08 4.25

2

3.31

3.26

4.04

4.37

4.28

4.01 4.19

3.85

3.18

3.04

3.73

3.92

2.92 2.47

2.81

3.06

2.21

NP

AR

PG

Engage in an other activity when first arriving at a gambling venue

Avoid betting on a gambling outcome during the event, only beforehand (e.g. for sports betting)

Keep a record of your gambling (frequency, session length and/or expenditure

Cash out all or a portion of winnings and don’t gamble those winnings

Take frequent breaks

Avoid having multiple online gambling accounts

1

Avoid betting on every race/sport/other gambling outcome


3

Figure 5.8. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘limiting persistence at gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). NP = non-problem gamblers, AR = atrisk gamblers, PG = problem gamblers. * indicates that the rated importance for non-problem gamblers is significantly lower than for at-risk and problem gamblers, with the latter two groups not differing significantly for that item. ** indicates that the rated importance differs significantly between all three levels of problem gambling for that item. All tests based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

5.7 ‘Use help and support if needed’ category Importance of specific behaviours The four most important behaviours within this category were to ‘seek professional gambling help if needed’, ‘have someone in your life who you can talk to openly about gambling’, ‘block online websites if needed’ and ‘self-exclude from gambling venues and/or websites if needed’. The next most important was to ‘develop a support network’. All were seen as very important. ‘Not gambling alone or with heavy gamblers’ was also seen as moderately to very important, as was ‘calling someone if you have the urge to gamble’, and finally ‘asking a friend to call you at a designated time to remind you to leave or to stop gambling’, which was the least important in this category. See Figure 5.9 for further details and Table D.9 for statistical results.


Page 82



5

4.20

4.15

4.13

4.12

4.01

3.83

3.63

3.48

Ask a friend to call you at a designated time and remind you to leave or to stop gambling

3



4

2

Do not gamble alone or with heavy gamblers

Develop a support network

Self-exclude from gambling venues and/or websites if needed

Block online gambling websites if needed

Have someone in your life who you can talk to openly about gambling

Seek professional gambling help if needed

1

Figure 5.9. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘use help and support if needed’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

Importance of specific behaviours for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers All items were seen as very to extremely important for problem gamblers, and most were considered very to extremely important for at-risk gamblers, except for ‘ask a friend to call you at a designated time and remind you to leave or to stop gambling’ and ‘call someone if you have the urge to gamble’. All items were rated as being significantly less important for at-risk gamblers than they were for problem gamblers. For non-problem gamblers, all items were seen as significantly less important than they were for at-risk and problem gamblers. Some were seen as relatively unimportant, notably ‘call someone if you have the urge to gamble’, ‘ask a friend to call you at a designated time’ and ‘do not gamble alone or with heavy gamblers’. See Figure 5.10 for further details and Table D.10 for statistical results.


Page 83



5

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻


✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

4

3

4.75 4.35

4.30

4.61

3.55

3.51

4.30

4.67

4.61

3.48

4.29 3.38

2

4.24 3.22

4.55

4.48

4.42

4.12

3.92

2.90

3.74

4.06

2.65

2.56

NP

AR

PG

Ask a friend to call you at a designated time and remind you to leave or to stop gambling


Do not gamble alone or with heavy gamblers


Self-exclude from gambling venues and/or websites if needed

Block online gambling websites if needed

Have someone in your life who you can talk to openly about gambling

Seek professional gambling help if needed

1

Figure 5.10. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘use help and support if needed’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). NP = non-problem gamblers, AR = atrisk gamblers, PG = problem gamblers. * indicates that the rated importance for non-problem gamblers is significantly lower than for at-risk and problem gamblers, with the latter two groups not differing significantly for that item. ** indicates that the rated importance differs significantly between all three levels of problem gambling for that item. All tests based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

5.8 ‘Understanding gambling’ category Importance of specific behaviours The most important behaviours in this category were to ‘understand the role of chance in gambling’, ‘understand that gambling over a long period makes no difference to your chances of winning’, ‘understand that you cannot win money from gambling in the long run’ and ‘expect to lose when gambling’. The next most important was to ‘understand that feeling lucky makes no difference to your chances of winning’. All of these behaviours were considered very to extremely important. The least important (but still moderately to very important) behaviours were ‘read the fine print on promotions before you enter them’, ‘think about how long it took to save the money that you use to gamble’, ‘think about other things that the money spent on gambling could be used for’ and ‘think about how you feel when your gambling money is gone’. See Figure 5.11 for further details and Table D.11 for statistical results.


Page 84



5


4

3 4.36

4.33

4.25

4.24

4.21

4.03

2

1 Understand that Understand that Understand that gambling for you cannot win gambling money from outcomes are longer makes no difference to your gambling in the affected by chances of long run chance – that any winning skill will not ensure a win

Expect to lose when gambling

Understand that Think about the feeling lucky possible negative makes no consequences of difference to your gambling chances of winning


5

4

3 4.00

3.89

3.88

3.77

3.65

3.39

2

1

Ensure that you Understand the Think about how Think about Think about how Read the fine do not odds before you you feel when other things that long it took to print on overestimate gamble your gambling the money spent save the money promotions your skill at money is gone on gambling that you use to before you enter gambling could be used gamble them for Figure 5.11. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘understanding gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour


Page 85



Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

Importance of specific behaviours for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers All items in this category were seen as very important to extremely important for problem gamblers, except for ‘read the fine print on promotions before you enter them’. One more item was seen as less than very important for at-risk gamblers: ‘Think about how long it took to save the money that you use to gamble’. All items were seen as between moderately and very important for non-problem gamblers, but were still significantly less important for non-problem gamblers compared to at-risk and problem gamblers. Most behaviours were rated as being more important for problem gamblers compared to at-risk gamblers, except for: ‘Understand that feeling lucky makes no difference to your chances of winning’, ‘understand that you cannot win money from gambling in the long run’, ‘expect to lose when gambling’ and ‘ensure that you do not overestimate your skill at gambling’. See Figure 5.12 for further details and Table D.12 for statistical results.


5

✻✻

✻✻

✻

✻

✻

✻✻

4

3 4.48 4.61 4.01

4.47 4.58 3.95

4.40 4.50

4.37 4.49 3.87

3.83

4.48

4.35 4.40

4.30

3.87 3.33

2

1 Understand that Understand that gambling for gambling longer makes no outcomes are affected by chance difference to your chances of – that any skill will winning not ensure a win

Understand that you cannot win money from gambling in the long run

NP


AR

Expect to lose when gambling

Understand that Think about the feeling lucky possible negative makes no consequences of difference to your gambling chances of winning

PG

Page 86



5

✻ ✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻


4

✻✻

3 4.42

4.19 4.30 3.52

4.03 4.14

4.25

4.12

3.85 4.00

3.97

3.48 3.58

3.51 3.09

2

3.08

3.10

3.11

1 Ensure that you Understand the Think about how Think about other Think about how Read the fine print do not odds before you you feel when things that the long it took to on promotions overestimate your gamble your gambling money spent on save the money before you enter skill at gambling money is gone gambling could be that you use to them used for gamble NP

AR

PG

Figure 5.12. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘understanding gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). NP = non-problem gamblers, AR = atrisk gamblers, PG = problem gamblers. * indicates that the rated importance for non-problem gamblers is significantly lower than for at-risk and problem gamblers, with the latter two groups not differing significantly for that item. ** indicates that the rated importance differs significantly between all three levels of problem gambling for that item. All tests based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

5.9 ‘Positive motivations for gambling’ category Importance of specific behaviours The most important behaviours in this category involved avoiding gambling as a means of paying bills or of making money. Not using gambling as a way of avoiding depression or feeling upset was also seen as an important behaviour. The next most important behaviours involved treating gambling only as a form of entertainment/fun/pleasure, not as relief from boredom, or as a way of impressing or challenging others. The least important in this category was avoiding taking gambling too seriously. All behaviours were seen as quite important, particularly the behaviours related to not treating gambling as a money-making exercise. See Figure 5.13 for further details and Table D.13 for statistical results.


Page 87



4.51

4.36

4.13

4.08

3.98

3.89

Avoid taking gambling too seriously, as it is just a game

4.61

Avoid gambling to impress or challenge other people

3

Avoid gambling to relieve boredom

4

Only gamble for entertainment/fun/pleasure


5

2

Avoid gambling when you feel depressed or upset

Avoid gambling in order to make money

Avoid gambling to pay bills

1

Figure 5.13. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘’positive’ motivations for gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

Importance of specific behaviours for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers All items in this category were seen as very to extremely important for at-risk and problem gamblers except for ‘avoid taking gambling too seriously, as it is just a game’, which was only slightly below ‘very important’ on average. All items were seen as significantly less important for non-problem gamblers, although ‘avoid gambling in order to make money’ and ‘avoid gambling to pay bills’ were still seen as very to extremely important. Two items were rated as significantly less important for at-risk gamblers compared to problem gamblers: ‘Avoid gambling when you feel depressed or upset’ and ‘avoid gambling to relieve boredom’. See Figure 5.14 for further details and Table D.14 for statistical results.


Page 88


✻


5

✻


✻✻

✻✻

✻

✻

✻

4

3

4.70 4.79 4.35

4.67 4.74 4.13

4.54 4.67 4.00

3.87

4.33 4.50

4.22 4.18

4.17 4.22

3.42

4.00 3.98

3.70

3.55

2

AR

Avoid gambling to impress or challenge other people

PG

Avoid taking gambling too seriously, as it is just a game

NP

Avoid gambling to relieve boredom

Only gamble for entertainment/fun/pleasure

Avoid gambling when you feel depressed or upset

Avoid gambling in order to make money

Avoid gambling to pay bills

1

Figure 5.14. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘’positive’ motivations for gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). NP = non-problem gamblers, AR = atrisk gamblers, PG = problem gamblers. * indicates that the rated importance for non-problem gamblers is significantly lower than for at-risk and problem gamblers, with the latter two groups not differing significantly for that item. ** indicates that the rated importance differs significantly between all three levels of problem gambling for that item. All tests based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

5.10 ‘A planned approach to gambling’ category Importance of specific behaviours The most important behaviour in this category was ‘avoid gambling when affected by alcohol or recreational drugs’, followed by ‘don’t give in to peer pressure to gamble’. Both were seen as very to extremely important. ‘Avoid gambling in the heat of the moment’ and ‘avoid gambling with heavy gamblers’ were also seen as very important, while the next three behaviours were about avoiding temptation and were considered moderately to very important. The least important behaviour in this category was ‘schedule gambling sessions’, which was still rated as moderately to very important. See Figure 5.15 for further details and Table D.15 for statistical results.


Page 89



5

4

3.78

3.74

3.63

3.46

Schedule gambling sessions, to avoid gambling on impulse

3.90

Avoid visiting gambling venues or websites when you don’t plan to gamble

3.96

Avoid being tempted to gamble by advertisements or promotions

4.12

Avoid being tempted to gamble by family or friends

4.35 2

Avoid gambling with heavy gamblers

Avoid gambling in the heat of the moment

Don’t give into peer pressure to gamble

1

Avoid gambling when affected by alcohol or recreational drugs


3

Figure 5.15. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘a planned approach to gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

Importance of specific behaviours for non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers All items in this category were seen as very to extremely important for problem gamblers and atrisk gamblers, except for ‘schedule gambling sessions, to avoid gambling on impulse’ and, for atrisk gamblers, ‘avoid being tempted to gamble by advertisements or promotions’. For at-risk gamblers, many items were seen as less than moderately important, on average. Most notably, these items were ‘avoid visiting gambling venues or websites when you don’t plan to gamble’, ‘schedule gambling sessions, to avoid gambling on impulse’ and ‘avoid being tempted to gamble by family or friends’. All items in this category were significantly more important for problem gamblers compared to atrisk gamblers, and significantly less important for non-problem gamblers compared to both at-risk and problem gamblers. See Figure 5.16 for further details and Table D.16 for statistical results.


Page 90



5

✻✻

✻✻


✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

✻✻

4

3

4.51 4.65

4.33 4.50

4.24

4.5 4.13

3.87

4.43

4.38

4.06

3.95

4.37

4.21

3.92

3.72

3.54 3.19

3.13

2

4.01

3.04

2.85

2.61

2.65

NP

AR

Schedule gambling sessions, to avoid gambling on impulse

Avoid visiting gambling venues or websites when you don’t plan to gamble

Avoid being tempted to gamble by advertisements or promotions

Avoid being tempted to gamble by family or friends

Avoid gambling with heavy gamblers

Avoid gambling in the heat of the moment

Don’t give into peer pressure to gamble


1

PG

Figure 5.16. Mean (and SE) rated importance of ‘a planned approach to gambling’ behaviours in terms of RCG behaviour for each problem gambling status Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). NP = non-problem gamblers, AR = atrisk gamblers, PG = problem gamblers. * indicates that the rated importance for non-problem gamblers is significantly lower than for at-risk and problem gamblers, with the latter two groups not differing significantly for that item. ** indicates that the rated importance differs significantly between all three levels of problem gambling for that item. All tests based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

5.11 Additional behaviours and categories While being asked about the behaviours in each category, respondents were asked whether any additional behaviours should also be included. Responses comprised either 1) behaviours that were listed in later categories (e.g., when asked about behaviours in the ‘ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’ category, one response was ‘seeking assistance’), 2) another way of wording a concept that was already in the listed behaviours (e.g., in the ‘ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’ category, one respondent offered ‘credit is not ‘your’ money’, which covers a similar concept to ‘avoid borrowing money or getting money on credit’) or 3) were general comments, such as ‘these strategies will not work for problem gamblers’. Thus, no additional measures were added based on these responses. The respondents were also asked whether any additional categories of behaviours should be considered. Any suggested categories were usually specific behaviours that fitted into existing categories (e.g., ‘talk about gambling’ and ‘being aware of amount spent on gambling activities and


Page 91



the time spent at these activities’). Thus no new categories of behaviours were identified by the respondents.

5.12 Relationship between adherence to responsible gambling behaviours and gambling-related harm After rating the importance of each RCG behaviour, respondents were asked whether the average person who adheres to these behaviours would be likely to experience no, minor or major gambling-related harm. Most of the experts surveyed considered it likely or very likely that such a person would experience no harm, and unlikely or very unlikely that they would experience major gambling-related harm. Respondents were more neutral towards such a person experiencing minor gambling-related harm (Figure 5.17). The rated likelihood was significantly different for each of the three groups. See Table D.17 for statistical results.

Rating of Likelihood

5

4

3

3.65 2

2.79 2.04

1 No

Minor

Major

Figure 5.17. Mean (and SD) rated likelihood that the average person who adheres to the aforementioned RCG behaviours experiences no, minor or major gambling-related harm Note: Likelihood was rated from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

Respondents were also asked how likely it is that a person who adheres to these RCG behaviours is a non-problem, at-risk or problem gambler. Most respondents thought that such a person was likely or very likely to be a non-problem gambler, and thought it unlikely that such a person was an at-risk gambler, and unlikely to very unlikely that such a person was a problem gambler (Figure 5.18). Such a person was rated as significantly more likely to be a non-problem gambler than an at-risk or problem gambler, and significantly less likely to be a problem gambler compared to an atrisk gambler. See Table D.18 for statistical results.


Page 92



5


4

3 4.05

2 2.54 2.02 1

Non-problem

At-risk

Problem

Figure 5.18. Mean (and SE) rated likelihood that the average person who adheres to the aforementioned RCG behaviours is a non-problem, at-risk or problem gambler Note: Likelihood was rated from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

When asked if the average person who adheres to RCG behaviours was likely to experience benefits, no effects or detriments to their health and wellbeing from their gambling, most reported that they were unlikely to experience detriments, but were more neutral in their responses to whether the person would experience no effects or benefits. The respondents rated that they were significantly more likely to experience no effects from their gambling compared to benefits or harms, and significantly more likely to experience harms than benefits. See Figure 5.19 for more details and Table D.19 for statistical results.


Page 93



5


4

3

3.30 2

2.89 2.39

1

Benefits

No effects

Detriments

Figure 5.19. Mean (and SD) rated likelihood that the average person who adheres to the aforementioned RCG behaviours experiences benefits, no effects, or detriments to their health and wellbeing from their gambling Note: Likelihood was rated from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

5.13 The concept of responsible gambling Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they understood what the term ‘responsible gambling’ means and most supported the concept of RG. Most experts agreed that safe levels of gambling participation are possible, and disagreed with the statement that ‘there is no such thing as responsible gambling’ and that ‘”responsible gambling” is a meaningless term’ (Figure 5.20).


Page 94



5

Rating of Agreement

4

3 4.22

4.11

4.02

2 2.26

2.04

1

I understand what Safe levels of the term gambling responsible participation are gambling means possible

I support the concept of responsible gambling

There is no such ‘Responsible thing as gambling’ is a responsible meaningless term gambling

Figure 5.20. Mean (and SE) rated agreement with statements about the term RG Note: Agreement was rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). No statistical tests were performed as the statements were deemed to not be comparable.

5.14 Who should responsible gambling consumption messages and guidelines target? Most experts strongly agreed that RG messages and guidelines should target ALL gamblers, whether they are problem, at-risk or non-problem gamblers (Figure 5.21). However, the strongest agreement was for targeting at-risk gamblers over all other groups, and non-problem gamblers over problem gamblers. Table D.20 contains the statistical results.


Page 95



Rating of Agreement

5

4

3 4.56 4.21

4.33

2

1

Problem

At-risk

Non-problem

Figure 5.21. Mean (and SE) rated agreement that RCG messages and guidelines should target problem, at-risk and non-problem gamblers Note: Agreement was rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

Most experts thought that problem gamblers would not be particularly receptive to the term ‘responsible gambling’, with at-risk gamblers being significantly more receptive, and non-problem gamblers more receptive again (Figure 5.22). See Table D.21 for statistical results.

Rating of Receptiveness

4

3

2

2.88 2.35 1.81

1

Problem

At-risk

Non-problem

Figure 5.22. Mean (and SE) rated receptiveness of problem, at-risk and non-problem gamblers to the term ‘responsible gambling’ Note: Receptiveness was rated from 1 (not at all receptive) to 4 (very receptive). Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.


Page 96



5.15 Promotion of responsible gambling messages Most experts agreed that it is important to promote the message to gamble responsibly to consumers, but disagreed that it is adequately promoted or generally understood by consumers. Furthermore, most believed that RCG is not promoted in a way that can meaningfully assist consumers to gamble responsibly. In terms of consumer guidelines for RCG behaviours, most experts disagreed that they are adequately promoted and disagreed somewhat that the guidelines are appropriate or evidencebased (Figure 5.23). 5

3

The term ‘responsible gambling’ is generally understood by consumers

2.75

2.70

2.15

Consumer guidelines for responsible gambling behaviours are adequately promoted

1

2.33

Responsible gambling consumption is promoted in a way that meaningfully assists…

2.44

Consumer guidelines for responsible gambling behaviours are evidence-based

2.45

The message to gamble responsibly is adequately promoted to consumers

2

Consumer guidelines for responsible gambling behaviours are appropriate

4.21

It is important to promote the message to gamble responsibly to consumers

Rating of Agreement

4

Figure 5.23. Mean (and SE) rated agreement with the statements about RCG Note: Agreement was rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). No statistical tests were performed as the statements were deemed to not be comparable.

Most experts believed that gambling venues and governments inadequately promote RG messages, but were more neutral towards whether public health agencies did so. Most believed that gambling help services adequately promoted RG (Figure 5.24). All differences between these means were statistically significant. See Table D.22 for statistical results.


Page 97



5

Rating of Adequateness

4

3

3.47 3.04

2 2.02

2.26

1

Gambling venues (landbased and online)

Government

Public health/ community education/ responsible gambling agencies

Gambling help services

Figure 5.24. Mean (and SE) rated adequateness of the promotion of RCG by each of the following bodies Note: Adequateness was rated from 1 (extremely inadequately) to 5 (extremely adequately). Bars with different colours are significantly different from each other, based on repeated measures (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05) analyses.

The forms of gambling for which RG promotion was considered least adequate were EGMs and sports betting, followed by race betting, and then bingo, casino games, poker and keno. Lotterytype games had the highest rated adequacy of RG promotion, although on average this was still rated as inadequate (Figure 5.25). See Table D.23 for statistical results.


Page 98



5

Rating of Adequateness

4

3

2 2.46 1.92

2.06

2.20

2.17

2.16

2.24

1.89

1

Figure 5.25. Mean (and SE) rated adequateness of the promotion of RCG for each type of gambling activity Note: Adequateness was rated from 1 (extremely inadequately) to 5 (extremely adequately).

When asked what was the best terminology for RCG for the general public, the most common responses were ‘responsible gambling’, ‘low-risk gambling’ and ‘safe gambling’ (Figure 5.26).


Page 99



100

90

80

Percentage

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

24.3

21.5

23.4

6.5 5.6

3.7

15.0

Moderate gambling

Other

0

Responsible gambling

Low-risk gambling

Safe Positive play Healthy gambling gambling

Figure 5.26. Best terminology for RCG for the general public Other terms: ‘affordable gambling’, ‘gambling’, ‘gambling in moderation’, ‘informed gambling’, ‘low impact/risk reducing gambling’, ‘lower risk’, ‘moderation gambling’, ‘recreational gambling’, ‘safe play’, ‘safer gambling’, ‘safer play’. Other comments included: ‘I don’t like any of them! Especially in association with the higher-risk products’ and ‘Risk business be aware’.

5.16 Whose responsibility is it to ensure people gamble responsibly? Respondents were asked to indicate the proportion of responsibility that belongs to each of the parties shown in Table 5.1. For this question, respondents were asked to allocate 100 per cent between these options. Most stated that gamblers had the most responsibility, followed by gambling operators and then governments. Most believed that the broader community, family and friends of the gamblers and gambling help services did not have any responsibility to ensure that consumers gamble responsibly. See Table D.24 for statistical results.


Page 100



Table 5.1. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that consumers gamble responsibly? Mean (and SD) proportion of responsibility allocated to each of the following, and proportion of respondents allocating 0 and 100 per cent to each Mean (and SD)

Gamblers Gambling operators

34.8 (23.2) 28.0 (15.7)

% of respondents allocating 0% 5.6 7.5

% of respondents allocating 100% 0.9 0.0

Governments Public health/ community education agencies Gambling help services Family and friends of gamblers The broader community Other

21.5 (17.5) 6.8 (9.1)

14.0 41.9

0.9 0.0

3.4 (5.4) 2.6 (5.8) 2.0 (3.9) 1.3 (10.0)

63.6 65.1 73.5 97.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9

Other responses: ‘All’ and ‘gambling product manufacturers’ and ‘environment’.

Most experts believed that too little emphasis was placed on gambling operators and governments in terms of provision of a safe gambling environment and products, and safe gambling policies respectively. Most also through that too much emphasis was placed on gamblers themselves (Figure 5.27). 100 90 80

Percentage

70 60 50 81.3

40

77.6

30

57.0

20 29.0 10

15.9

14.0

17.8

2.8

4.7

0

Too little Gamblers

About right Gambling operators

Too much Governments

Figure 5.27. Percentage of respondents saying that too little, about right, or too much emphasis is placed on gamblers to self-regulate, gambling operators to provide safe products and environments and governments to implement safe gambling policies


Page 101



5.17 Responsible gambling consumption limits Respondents were asked whether each of four RCG limits proposed by Currie et al. (2008a) was conservative or liberal. In general, each of the limits was seen as slightly liberal (Figure 5.28), but all of these limits were seen as moderately or very important by the majority of experts (Figure 5.29). See Tables D.25 and D.26 for statistical results. 9

Rating of Liberalness/Conservativeness

8

7

6

5

4

3

5.4

5.1

5.4

5.3

CAN $500 to $1000 per year / US $400 to $800 per year / AUS $540 to $1080 per year

1% gross income

2

1

2-3 times per month

60 minutes per session

Figure 5.28. Mean (and SE) rated liberalness/conservativeness of the following RG limits Note: Rated on a scale from 1 (very conservative) to 5 (just right) to 9 (very liberal). Note: No statistically significant differences were observed between the rated liberalness/conservativeness of these four limits (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons).


Page 102



5


4

3

2

3.2 2.9

3.0

3.0

1

2-3 times per month 60 minutes per session CAN $500 to $1000 per year / US $400 to $800 per year / AUS $540 to $1080 per year

1% gross income

Figure 5.29. Mean (and SE) rated importance of the following RG limits Note: Importance was rated from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). The limit of 60 mins per session was rated as being significantly lower in importance than 2–3 times per month. No other statistically significant differences were observed (ANOVA with pairwise comparisons).

5.18 Potential concerns with responsible gambling Respondents generally agreed that the term ‘responsible gambling’ is discouraging for people having difficulties with their gambling and tended to agree that the term ‘responsible gambling’ stigmatises people who are having difficulties. There was moderate agreement that RCG guidelines may create a false sense of security amongst gamblers, and most agreed that gamblers adhering to RCG guidelines may feel safe and impervious to gambling-related harms, and that problem gamblers may use adherence to RCG guidelines to justify continuing to gamble. However, most disagreed that RCG guidelines would encourage more people to gamble, and there was some disagreement that RCG guidelines may encourage people who have stopped gambling to start again. Most experts thought it was possible to develop an evidence-based set of RCG behaviours for consumers, and most thought that these guidelines needed to be defined for each specific type of gambling. Furthermore, most thought that RCG guidelines could be practical despite people having large variations in their personal circumstances, income, etc. Most respondents agreed that RCG guidelines are insufficient to protect consumers from gambling-related harm, but were neutral in terms of whether RCG guidelines were useful to problem gamblers. Finally, there was general disagreement that RCG guidelines would be ignored by consumers (Figure 5.30).


Page 103


1 3.07 2.89

Responsible gambling guidelines will be ignored by consumers

2.65

Responsible gambling guidelines are not useful to problem gamblers

3.66

Responsible gambling guidelines are insufficient to protect consumers from gamblingrelated harm

2.42

Responsible gambling guidelines are not practical given large variations in people’s individual circumstances, disposable income,…

3.42

Responsible gambling guidelines need to be defined for each specific type of gambling

2.80

It is impossible to develop an evidence-based set of responsible gambling behaviours to guide consumers

2.55

Responsible gambling guidelines may encourage people who have stopped gambling to start again

Responsible gambling guidelines may encourage more people to gamble

3.38

Problem gamblers may justify continuing to gamble if they adhere to responsible gambling guidelines

3.21

Gamblers adhering to responsible gambling guidelines may feel they are safe and impervious to gambling-related harms

3.19

Responsible gambling guidelines may create a false sense of security amongst gamblers

2 3.30

The term ‘responsible gambling’ stigmatises people who are having difficulties controlling their gambling

The term ‘responsible gambling’ is discouraging for people having difficulties controlling their gambling

Rating fo Agreement

Behavioural indicators of responsible gambling consumption Hing, Russell & Hronis

5

4

3

3.52

Figure 5.30. Mean (and SE) rated agreement with the statements about concerns about RG

Note: Agreement was rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). No statistical tests were performed as the

statements were deemed to not be comparable.

5.19 Revisiting definitions, aims and objectives of responsible gambling consumption

After answering all survey items, respondents were shown the initial definitions, aims and objectives that they had provided and asked if they wanted to change their answers in light of the material covered in the survey.

The vast majority of respondents (n = 93) did not adjust their definition. Those who provided additional information generally reworded their definition to include concepts such as informed choice, understanding the risks and the nature of gambling, extending limits to time as well as money, and seeking help if harms have occurred.

Page 104



5.20 Chapter conclusion 

One hundred and seven experts completed a survey about the concept of RCG, including definitions, behaviours, and perceived outcomes. Specifically, experts were asked to rate the importance of RCG behaviours and categories of behaviours that were identified during the literature review and website content analysis.



In general, the experts identified the following important aspects of RCG in formulating a definition: gambling within limits (mostly money, but also other resources such as time); exercising control over gambling; gambling in a way that causes no harm to the gambler or others; and gambling for entertainment rather than to win money.



The experts rated ‘ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable’ as the most important category of behaviours, followed by ‘keeping gambling in balance’, then ‘limiting persistence at gambling’, then ‘use help and support if needed’, followed by ‘understanding gambling’ and ‘positive’ motivations for gambling’, and finally ‘a planned approach to gambling’. All categories of behaviours were rated as having at least moderate importance.



All specific behaviours within each category were identified as being at least moderately important to at-risk and problem gamblers. All specific behaviours were deemed as being significantly more important for at-risk and problem gamblers than for non-problem gamblers. Nevertheless, most items were still seen as somewhat important for nonproblem gamblers.



After rating the importance of the specific behaviours, the experts were asked about the typical gambler who adheres to these behaviours. Responses indicated that it was unlikely that such a person would experience major gambling-related harm, detriments from their gambling, or be an at-risk or problem gambler.



Most experts agreed that they understand the meaning of ‘responsible gambling’. However, there was some ambivalence about the term ‘responsible gambling’, with some experts preferring other terms, such as low-risk gambling or safe gambling. However, most supported the concept of RCG and believed that it is possible to gamble safely.



In general, experts rated the promotion of RCG to consumers as highly important, but as inadequately promoted by gambling venues (land-based and offline) and governments. They believed that RCG messages and guidelines should target all gamblers, regardless of their gambling risk status, although there was stronger agreement for targeting at-risk gamblers followed by non-problem gamblers. These last two groups were considered more likely to be receptive to the term ‘responsible gambling’, compared to problem gamblers who were considered to be largely unreceptive to this term.



The experts disagreed that current RCG guidelines are appropriate or evidence-based. They also stated that too little emphasis was placed on gambling operators and governments in terms of RG, while too much emphasis was placed on gamblers.



The RCG limits proposed by Currie et al. (2008a) were rated as just slightly liberal, and all were seen as somewhat important.



The experts endorsed some potential concerns with RCG: that it is discouraging and stigmatising for people with gambling problems; that RCG guidelines may create a false sense of security amongst gamblers; and that problem gamblers may use adherence to RCG guidelines to justify continuing to gamble. However, they tended to disagree that


Page 105



RCG guidelines would encourage more people to gamble and encourage those who had ceased gambling to recommence. 

Most experts considered it possible to develop an evidence-based and practical set of RCG behaviours, and that guidelines should be specific for each type of gambling. They were also confident that such guidelines, if developed, would not be ignored.



Further research is clearly needed into RCG. Validating a set of behavioural indicators of RCG in samples of gamblers is critical to inform policy and practice in this area.


Page 106



Chapter six: Discussion, conclusions and implications 6.1 Introduction This chapter concludes this report by discussing the study’s findings and implications. To meet the project’s aims, results from the three main sources of data examined (literature review, content analysis of gambling-related websites, and the expert survey) are integrated to develop a definition of responsible consumption of gambling (RCG), its underlying principles, and a preliminary set of behavioural indicators of RCG. The chapter concludes by identifying the key limitations of the study and its theoretical and applied implications.

6.2 What is responsible gambling consumption? A definition and underlying principles Gambling harm-minimisation in Australia is now dominated by exhortations to gamblers to ‘gamble responsibly’. However, the literature review revealed substantial ambiguity about the meaning of this phrase and about the overall concept of responsible consumption of gambling (Currie et al. 2008a; Dickson-Gillespie et al. 2008; Korn & Shaffer 1999). Only two definitions of responsible consumption of gambling have been published in the academic literature: ‘gambling within affordable limits of money, time and other resources’ (Blaszczynski et al. 2004: 567) and ‘gambling at recreational levels’ (Currie et al. 2006: 570). This general lack of coherence in the research literature was reflected in the content analysis of gambling-related websites. Of the 30 websites examined, only 10 defined responsible gambling – and they did so in highly variable ways, which may create confusion amongst consumers. Further, the lack of an evidence-base underpinning their responsible consumption of gambling guidelines may mean that inappropriate advice is given and/or that critical advice is overlooked. This lack of clarity was mirrored in the expert survey, where an array of inconsistent definitions was offered. Given that no universally accepted definition of responsible consumption of gambling exists, this variation is not surprising. What is surprising is that so few attempts have been made to define the construct that underpins the vast majority of government, industry and public health efforts to reduce the harm from gambling. Despite this lack of clarity, most surveyed experts agreed that they understood the meaning of the term ‘responsible gambling’. The vast majority were supportive of the concept of responsible gambling and considered safe levels of gambling to be possible. However, some ambivalence about the term ‘responsible gambling’ was evident, with nearly equal proportions of the experts preferring the term ‘safe gambling’ or ‘low-risk gambling’. This may be because the term ‘responsible gambling’ can be seen as stigmatising by implying that consumers who fail to gamble responsibly are irresponsible and therefore solely to blame for the gambling-related harms they experience (Hing, Russell, Nuske & Gainsbury 2015; Livingstone & Woolley 2007). As such, the terminology can be seen as ignoring the role of the gambling industry and governments to provide safe gambling products, environments and policies (Campbell & Smith 2003; Livingstone, Rintoul & Francis 2014; Schull 2012). In fact, most experts considered that the term ‘responsible gambling’ is stigmatising and discouraging for people having difficulties controlling their gambling and that problem gamblers would not be particularly receptive to the term. At-risk gamblers were considered to be potentially more receptive to the term, and non-problem gamblers more receptive again. While the experts considered that gamblers themselves have most responsibility to ensure


Page 107



that consumers gamble responsibly, the gambling industry and governments were also seen as having substantial levels of responsibility. Similarly, the experts felt that too much emphasis was placed on gamblers to self-regulate their gambling, and that too little emphasis was placed on industry to provide safe gambling products and environments, and on governments to implement safe gambling policies. Despite widely varying definitions of responsible consumption of gambling, the study found reasonably consistent objectives or principles that are considered to underpin responsible consumption of gambling. The literature review identified informed choice, low risk, an enjoyable experience, spending only affordable amounts of time and money, and absence of associated harm as key inclusions (Blaszczynski et al. 2004; Korn & Shaffer 1999; Weinstock et al. 2007; Wood & Griffiths 2015). Most website definitions emphasised gambling within affordable amounts of money and time, while some also noted: gambling for pleasure/ entertainment/ fun; exercising control over gambling; informed decision-making; harm minimisation; and knowing the odds/the likelihood of losing/winning at gambling. One or two websites also included in their definitions: Gambling in balance with other activities; harm prevention; understanding the risks involved; knowing when to walk away; avoiding problem gambling; not having erroneous gambling beliefs; and not gambling when frustrated, anxious or depressed. The goals and objectives endorsed by over half the experts, in descending order of agreement, were: Gambling within an individual’s affordable limits of time, money and other resources; keeping gambling in balance with other activities and priorities; exercising informed choice about gambling; understanding the risks associated with gambling; staying in control of gambling; absence of gambling-related harm; adhering to pre-set time and money limits when gambling; an enjoyable/pleasurable gambling experience; and self-regulating one’s own gambling. From these three data sources (literature review, content analysis and expert survey), the key principles underpinning responsible consumption of gambling were distilled as follows: 

Affordability. Gambling within an individual’s affordable limits of time, money and other resources – which may involve setting and adhering to limits in advance of gambling.



Balance. Keeping gambling in balance with other activities, responsibilities and priorities – so that it does not compromise other aspects of the gambler’s life.



Informed choice. Exercising informed choice over gambling – which includes understanding the associated risks, not being influenced by erroneous gambling beliefs, and knowing the odds or the likelihood of losing and winning.



Control. Staying in control of gambling – through self-regulating one’s own gambling and knowing when to stop.



Enjoyment. An enjoyable/pleasurable gambling experience – motivated by gambling only for pleasure, entertainment and fun and not to win money.



Harm-free. Absence of gambling-related harm to self and others – including gambling in a way that avoids the development of gambling problems.


Page 108



These principles can be combined to formulate the following definition of responsible consumption of gambling: Exercising control and informed choice to ensure that gambling is kept within affordable limits of money and time, is enjoyable, in balance with other activities and responsibilities, and avoids gambling-related harm. This definition is consistent with the majority of expert views that gamblers who adhere to responsible consumption of gambling behaviours would be likely to experience no gamblingrelated harm, to be a non-problem gambler, and to experience no effects from their gambling (rather than benefits or detriments).

6.3 The promotion of responsible gambling consumption In contrast to their understanding of and support for the concept of responsible consumption of gambling, the experts overwhelmingly considered the concept to be poorly understood by consumers and inadequately promoted in a meaningful way, reflecting the ambiguity also found in the literature review around the concept of responsible gambling (Currie et al. 2008a; DicksonGillespie et al. 2008; Korn & Shaffer 1999). Existing responsible consumption of gambling guidelines were considered to be inappropriate and to lack evidence that they are efficacious, as reflected in the huge variety of guidelines found in the content analysis of gambling-related websites. Promotion of responsible gambling, particularly by industry and governments, was seen as inadequate for all forms of gambling, but especially deficient in relation to EGMs, sports betting and race betting. Most experts strongly agreed that responsible consumption of gambling messages and guidelines should target all gamblers, although there was stronger support for targeting at-risk gamblers, followed by non-problem gamblers and problem gamblers respectively. This may reflect a primary function of responsible consumption of gambling behaviours as preventative and harm minimisation measures rather than a means to address a severe gambling problem. These findings emphasise the need to develop an evidence-based set of behaviours that underpin responsible consumption of gambling, as advanced in the current study, and to more actively promote them to meaningfully assist consumers to gamble responsibly. While evidence that the promotion of responsible consumption of gambling can positively influence behaviour is lacking, knowledge about responsible behaviours may be a precursor to adopting more responsible gambling-related attitudes and behaviours over time (Hing, Sproston, Tran & Russell 2016). Encouragingly, the experts agreed that it is possible to develop an evidence-based set of responsible consumption of gambling behaviours which are practical for consumers, despite the large variations in gamblers’ personal circumstances, disposable income and other characteristics. This was also reflected in their overall support for the development and promotion of responsible consumption of gambling limits, such as those proposed by Currie et al. (2006, 2008b, 2009, 2011) in relation to gambling frequency, session duration and expenditure.


Page 109



6.4 Categories of responsible gambling behaviours and their importance Responsible consumption of gambling behaviours identified in the literature review and content analysis were initially grouped into nine catagories and then further reduced into seven categories for inclusion in the expert survey (to reduce overlap of associated behaviours). Reflecting the key principles underpinning responsible consumption of gambling and the definition proposed above, the most important of these categories of behaviours, rated by the experts as very to extremely important, was ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable, followed by keeping gambling in balance and limiting persistence at gambling (reflecting the importance of staying in control of gambling). Also considered very to extremely important were use help and support if needed and understanding gambling (which reflects the need to exercise informed choice). The least important categories of behaviours, which were nevertheless still considered as moderately to very important, were having ‘positive’ motivations for gambling (i.e., for pleasure and entertainment rather than to make money) and taking a planned approach to gambling to avoid gambling on impulse.

6.5 Which behaviours are thought to support responsible gambling consumption? The most important behaviours within each of the seven categories of responsible consumption of gambling behaviours are now summarised, based on results of the expert survey.

Ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable A variety of strategies are used by gamblers to help them to restrict their gambling to affordable expenditure levels (Blaszczynski et al. 2014; Hing 2005; Lalande & Ladouceur 2011; McDonnellPhillips 2006; Wood & Griffiths 2015). The seven behaviours within this category were all considered at least moderately important by the experts for gamblers to adopt to ensure their gambling is responsible. Behaviours considered very to extremely important, in descending order, were: 

Only gamble with money that is not needed for necessities.



Avoid borrowing money or getting money on credit to gamble with.



Only gamble what you can afford to lose.



Set an affordable gambling budget.



Set deposit limits for Internet gambling accounts.

Overall, there was a consistent pattern of assigning more importance to adopting each behaviour for problem gamblers, followed by at-risk gamblers and then non-problem gamblers. The most important behaviours for both problem and at-risk gamblers were to avoid borrowing money (including credit) to gamble with and to only gamble with money that is not needed for necessities, although nearly all items were seen as very to extremely important for these groups, and as moderately to very important for non-problem gamblers. Several behaviours were considered significantly less important for non-problem gamblers, reflecting their greater assumed control over gambling expenditure and their lower perceived need to use external controls to limit this expenditure.


Page 110



Keeping gambling in balance Responsible consumption of gambling can be facilitated by balancing gambling with other activities (Currie et al. 2008a; Responsible Gambling Council 2010) and research has investigated use of this strategy amongst gamblers (Abbott et al. 2014a, 2014b, Moore et al. 2012). The five behaviours within this category were all considered between very and extremely important for gamblers to adopt to ensure their gambling is responsible: 

Ensure that you gamble in a way that does not cause harm or problems for other individuals.



Ensure that gambling doesn’t dominate your leisure time.



Ensure that gambling doesn’t dominate your thoughts when you are not gambling.



Engage in other leisure activities, hobbies or interests other than gambling.



Prioritise your responsibilities (e.g., to family, friends, work, study) over gambling.

Again, there was a consistent pattern of assigning more importance to adopting each behaviour for problem gamblers, followed by at-risk gamblers and then non-problem gamblers. All behaviours were considered very to extremely important for at-risk and problem gamblers. All behaviours were rated as significantly less important for non-problem gamblers, but all were nonetheless considered at least moderately important for this group to adopt.

Limiting persistence at gambling Several strategies can be used by gamblers to limit persistence at gambling and to adhere to selfimposed monetary and time limits on gambling (Abbott et al. 2014a; Dzik 2006; Ladouceur et al. 2012; Lalande & Ladouceur 2011; McDonnell-Phillips 2006; Moore et al. 2012; Nelson et al. 2013; Nower & Blaszczynski 2010 Samson et al. 2012; Schottler Consulting 2010a). All 14 behaviours in this category were considered at least moderately important by the experts, except for ‘engage in an activity other than gambling when first arriving at a gambling venue’. Behaviours considered very to extremely important, in descending order, were: 

Avoid chasing losses when gambling.



Avoid increasing bets when losing.



Set and stick to a limit on how much money you spend when you gamble.



Set and stick to a limit on how often you gamble.



Avoid increasing bets when winning.

The pattern of assigning more importance to adopting each behaviour for problem gamblers, followed by at-risk gamblers and then non-problem gamblers was again apparent. Most behaviours were rated as significantly more important for problem gamblers to adopt to ensure their gambling is responsible, reflecting that persistence at gambling is a major source of harm for this group. Nevertheless, most behaviours were considered between very and extremely important for at-risk gamblers as well, and at least moderately important for non-problem gamblers.


Page 111



Understanding gambling Several researchers have argued that informed choice and decision-making are fundamental aspects of gambling responsibly (Blaszczynski et al. 2004, 2008, 2011; Dickerson 2003; Monaghan & Blaszczynski 2010; Parke et al. 2014b), while others have investigated associated strategies used by gamblers (Hing 2005; Ladouceur et al. 2002; McDonnell-Phillips 2006; Moore et al. 2012). The 12 behaviours in this category were all considered at least moderately important overall, with those considered very to extremely important, in descending order, being: 

Understand that gambling outcomes are affected by chance – that any skill will not ensure a win.



Understand that gambling for longer makes no difference to your chances of winning.



Understand that you cannot win money from gambling in the long run.



Expect to lose when gambling.



Understand that feeling lucky makes no difference to your chances of winning.



Think about the possible negative consequences of gambling.



Ensure that you do not overestimate your skill at gambling.

The pattern of rating each behaviour as most important for problem gamblers to adopt, followed by at-risk gamblers and then non-problem gamblers, was consistent across all items. All behaviours were rated as significantly more important for problem gamblers compared to non-problem gamblers, and most were considered significantly more important for problem gamblers than for atrisk gamblers. Most behaviours were nonetheless considered between very and extremely important for problem and at-risk gamblers, and at least moderately important for non-problem gamblers.

‘Positive’ motivations for gambling The research literature provides substantial evidence that certain motivations for gambling, including to escape from personal problems and negative mood states, are associated with higher problem gambling severity, while gambling only for entertainment and not to make money is associated with lower levels of harm (Hing, Russell, Tolchard & Nower 2015; Saugeres et al. 2012; Wood & Griffiths 2015). Of the seven behaviours in this category, two behaviours were rated by the experts as moderately to very important and the following five behaviours were considered very to extremely important for gamblers to adopt to ensure their gambling is responsible: 

Avoid gambling to pay bills.



Avoid gambling in order to make money.



Avoid gambling when you feel depressed or upset.



Only gamble for entertainment/fun/pleasure.



Avoid gambling to relieve boredom.


Page 112



All seven behaviours were seen as significantly less important for non-problem gamblers (compared to at-risk and problem gamblers), although all were rated as at least moderately important. Only two behaviours were seen as significantly more important for problem than at-risk gamblers: ‘avoid gambling when you feel depressed or upset’ and ‘avoid gambling to relieve boredom’, reflecting the perceived importance for problem gamblers to avoid gambling to relieve negative mood states.

A planned approach to gambling This category of behaviours focuses on avoiding gambling on impulse in an unplanned and unreflective way, such as acting on pressure to gamble from peers, significant others and gambling marketing. While little research has been conducted into impulse gambling, studies have investigated strategies used by gamblers to limit temptations to gamble, such as avoiding gambling opportunities when not planning to gamble (Abbott et al. 2014a, 2014b; Ariyabuddhiphongs 2013; Lostutter et al. 2014; McDonnell-Phillips 2006; Moore et al. 2012; Samson et al. 2012) and limiting gambling frequency to a pre-planned amount (Lalande & Ladouceur 2011; McDonnell-Phillips 2006; Schottler Consulting 2010a; Thomas et al. 2010; Turner et al. 2005). As noted above, this category of behaviours was considered the least important of all categories, with all eight behaviours rated as at least moderately important, but only two behaviours rated as between very and extremely important: 

Avoid gambling when affected by alcohol or recreational drugs.



Don’t give in to peer pressure to gamble.

A consistent pattern was observed across all behaviours, with all items considered of most importance to problem gamblers, followed by at-risk and non-problem gamblers respectively. These differences were significant for all items across the three gambler groups. Nearly all behaviours were considered very to extremely important for at-risk and problem gamblers to adopt, but only between moderately and very important for non-problem gamblers. Three behaviours were considered of only mild importance for this latter group: ‘schedule gambling sessions, to avoid gambling on impulse’, ‘avoid being tempted to gamble by family or friends’ and ‘avoid visiting gambling venues or websites when you don’t plan to gamble’.

Use help and support if needed Of the eight behaviours in this category, three behaviours were rated by the experts as moderately to very important and the following five behaviours were considered very to extremely important for gamblers to adopt to ensure their gambling is responsible: 

Seek professional gambling help if needed.



Have someone in your life who you can talk to openly about gambling.



Block online gambling websites if needed.



Self-exclude from gambling venues and/or websites if needed.



Develop a support network.

All behaviours in this category were seen as more important for problem gamblers, followed by atrisk gamblers and then non-problem gamblers, with these differences all being significant between


Page 113



each gambler group. All behaviours were seen as very to extremely important for problem gamblers, and most were considered very to extremely important for at-risk gamblers. Five behaviours were considered moderately to very important for non-problem gamblers but three behaviours were seen as of only mild importance to this group. However, whether willingness to use help and support if needed is within the scope of responsible gambling behaviours is debatable, as it was not amongst the principles that the experts considered to underpin responsible consumption of gambling. This may be because using help and support aims to reduce harm that is already occurring and to address an existing gambling problem, rather than to prevent the occurrence of gambling-related harm and the development of gambling problems in the first place. The gambling-related websites examined also tended to present information about help-seeking in a separate section (often called ‘problem gambling’) to information about ‘responsible gambling’. Conflating problem gambling with responsible gambling may also further add to any impression that responsible gambling is aimed only at people with gambling problems (Wood & Griffiths 2015). Nevertheless, because the aim of this study was to develop only a preliminary set of responsible gambling indicators, this category of behaviours was retained in the final set of indicators presented later in this chapter. Validation of the behavioural indicators via surveys with gamblers is required, and the researchers considered that it was prudent to retain the help-seeking items for a subsequent validation stage.

6.6 A preliminary set of behavioural indicators of responsible consumption of gambling Results from the three research stages formed the basis for formulating a preliminary set of behavioural indicators of responsible gambling for subsequent validation. In total, 57 responsible consumption of gambling behaviours were identified from the literature review and 88 additional behaviours were identified from the content analysis. These were condensed into 61 behaviours grouped into seven categories for the expert survey. Of these 61 behaviours, only those considered at least moderately important for all three groups of gamblers (non-problem, at-risk and problem gamblers) were retained for inclusion. This decision was based on the experts’ strong majority agreement that responsible gambling messages and guidelines should target all gamblers. Ten items were discarded on this basis: ‘Limit access to cash when gambling, such as by leaving bank cards at home or giving your wallet to someone you trust’; ‘keep a record of your gambling (frequency, session length and/or expenditure)’; ‘engage in an activity other than gambling when first arriving at a gambling venue’; ‘avoid betting on a gambling outcome during the event, only beforehand (e.g. for sports betting)’; ‘schedule gambling sessions, to avoid gambling on impulse’; ‘avoid being tempted to gamble by family or friends’; ‘avoid visiting gambling venues or websites when you don’t plan to gamble’; ‘ask a friend to call you at a designated time and remind you to leave or to stop gambling’; ‘call someone if you have the urge to gamble’; and ‘do not gamble alone or with heavy gamblers’. These items are all behaviours that are most likely to be used by at-risk and problem gamblers to control or reduce their gambling, rather than being used as harm prevention measures by non-problem gamblers. The final set of preliminary indicators contains 51 behaviours grouped into seven categories, as shown in Table 6.1. These preliminary indicators now require validation to create a Behavioural Indicators of Responsible Gambling Scale (BIRGS). A large sample of gamblers could be surveyed for their usage of each of the behaviours, with the data subjected to an appropriate psychometric battery of tests. This typically includes first determining any items that may be problematic, such as


Page 114



having very little variance. An exploratory factor analysis could then determine whether the items form subscales, such as the six categories of behaviours in Table 6.1. After discarding items not loading strongly onto factors, confirmatory factor analysis could assess the goodness of fit of the model to the data. Content validity of the BIRGS would be assured through the development processes undertaken in the current study which ensure that the scale represents all critical aspects of responsible consumption of gambling behaviour. Construct validity could be assessed through checking that the BIRGS is negatively correlated with appropriate and validated scales which may include the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI; Ferris & Wynne 2001), the Gambling Urge Scale (Raylu & Oei 2004) and a validated measure of gambling harms. Including global measures of the key principles underpinning responsible consumption of gambling behaviour (as developed in the current study) may provide additional opportunities to improve the construct validity of the BIRGS. Validation would also need to consider the indicators’ applicability to different forms of gambling, with the surveyed experts considering that responsible consumption of gambling indicators and guidelines need to be specifically defined for each type of gambling.


Page 115



Table 6.1. Preliminary set of behavioural indicators of responsible consumption of gambling Ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable 1. Only gamble with money that is not needed for necessities such as bills, rent, food, etc. 2. Avoid borrowing money or getting money on credit (including credit cards) to gamble with 3. Only gamble what you can afford to lose 4. Set an affordable gambling budget 5. Set deposit limits for Internet gambling accounts 6. Use only online gambling websites with daily spend limits Keeping gambling in balance 7. Ensure that you gamble in a way that does not cause harm or problems for other individuals 8. Ensure that gambling doesn’t dominate your leisure time 9. Ensure that gambling doesn’t dominate your thoughts when you are not gambling 10. Engage in other leisure activities, hobbies or interests other than gambling 11. Prioritise your responsibilities (e.g., to family, friends, work, study) over gambling Limiting persistence at gambling 12. Avoid chasing losses when gambling 13. Avoid increasing bets when losing 14. Set and stick to a limit on how much money you spend when you gamble 15. Avoid increasing bets when winning 16. Avoid betting on every race/sport/other gambling outcome 17. Avoid having multiple online gambling accounts 18. Set and stick to a limit on your maximum bet size when you gamble 19. Set and stick to a limit on how often you gamble 20. Cash out all or a portion of winnings and don’t gamble those winnings later in the session 21. Set and stick to a limit on how long you gamble for each session 22. Take frequent breaks when gambling Understanding gambling 23. Understand that gambling outcomes are affected by chance – that any skill will not ensure a win 24. Understand that gambling for longer makes no difference to your chances of winning 25. Understand that feeling lucky makes no difference to your chances of winning 26. Expect to lose when gambling 27. Understand that you cannot win money from gambling in the long run 28. Ensure that you do not overestimate your skill at gambling 29. Understand the odds before you gamble 30. Think about the possible negative consequences of gambling (e.g. financial, relationship or personal problems) 31. Read the fine print on promotions before you enter them 32. Think about how long it took to save the money that you use to gamble 33. Think about how you feel when your gambling money is gone 34. Think about other things that the money spent on gambling could be used for ‘Positive’ motivations for gambling 35. Avoid gambling to pay bills 36. Avoid gambling in order to make money 37. Only gamble for entertainment/fun/pleasure 38. Avoid gambling when you feel depressed or upset 39. Avoid taking gambling too seriously, as it is just a game 40. Avoid gambling to impress or challenge other people 41. Avoid gambling to relieve boredom A planned approach to gambling 42. Avoid gambling when affected by alcohol or recreational drugs 43. Don’t give in to peer pressure to gamble 44. Avoid gambling with heavy gamblers 45. Avoid gambling in the heat of the moment 46. Avoid being tempted to gamble by advertisements or promotions Use help and support if needed 47. Seek professional gambling help if needed 48. Self-exclude from gambling venues and/or websites if needed 49. Block online gambling websites if needed 50. Have someone in your life who you can talk to openly about gambling 51. Develop a support network


Page 116



6.7 Limitations of the study The findings of this study should be interpreted with several limitations in mind. First, the literature review and content analysis may have overlooked some responsible consumption of gambling behaviours, especially given that the content analysis was restricted to only 30 websites. However, it is unlikely that important behaviours were overlooked given that the experts could not identify any additional behaviours or categories of behaviours that should have been included. Nevertheless, a challenge in this study was to distinguish behaviours that captured the important essence of strategies that gamblers use to maintain safe levels of gambling, while avoiding the inclusion of multiple variations of these strategies aimed at achieving the same outcomes. Because the aim of this study was to develop a preliminary set of behavioural indicators of responsible consumption of gambling for subsequent development into a scale for survey use, a parsimonious approach was taken towards item inclusion where possible. A second limitation is that the sample of experts was selected based on professional contacts and subscribers to the major international discussion group for professionals working with gambling issues. The response rate was also low, despite a reasonably generous incentive and follow-up reminders. While purposive sampling is highly appropriate when seeking expert views, the views gathered may not be representative of all experts in the field. A final limitation is that the study did not include a validation stage to finalise the BIRGS, as this proposed stage was not funded. Clearly, its validation is a key recommendation for further research.

6.8 Conclusions and implications This study has developed a definition and identified a set of underlying principles of responsible consumption of gambling, and developed a preliminary set of behavioural indicators. Three stages of research were conducted and comprised a literature review, website analysis and expert survey. The literature review revealed substantial ambiguity surrounding the concept of responsible gambling, especially in relation to responsible consumption of gambling. No agreed definition or set of underlying principles for responsible consumption of gambling were found, and it was unclear which gambler risk groups should be targeted by related messages and guidelines. Little research has been conducted to understand the behaviours and strategies which gamblers can engage in to gamble responsibly, with most of this limited research focused on setting monetary and time limits. A few studies have examined self-regulatory strategies used by gamblers, but there is little research evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of these strategies. Further research is needed to develop an evidence-based set of strategies for gambling responsibly. The content analysis of 30 gambling-related websites revealed substantial variation in terms of how responsible gambling is defined and described, and the strategies they promote to consumers to assist them to gamble responsibly. Current consumer guidelines have been developed on an ad hoc basis without any evidence for their efficacy – either in isolation or combined. Future policy, practice and research would benefit from the adoption of a consistent definition of RCG and its underlying principles; development of specific behavioural indicators of responsible consumption of gambling which have been validated for their efficacy; and promotion of these behaviours in a consistent manner across websites and other media.


Page 117



The survey of 107 experts informed the development of a definition and set of underlying principles for responsible consumption of gambling, and helped to refine a preliminary set of behavioural indicators for validation in subsequent research. Developing and promoting responsible gambling guidelines was considered highly important by the experts, with the current approach to promoting the ‘gamble responsibly’ message considered inadequate. The experts held concerns that this message is stigmatising, that it locates the problem within the individual gambler, and that it places too little emphasis on gambling operators and governments to provide safe gambling products, environments, policies and practices. Nevertheless, they conveyed substantial confidence that it possible to develop an evidence-based and practical set of responsible gambling guidelines for consumers. This study has laid the groundwork for developing and validating a Behavioural Indicators of Responsible Gambling Scale (BIRGS), which will comprise the first evidence-based set of behavioural markers associated with gambling responsibly. The definition, underlying principles and the BIRGS potentially have multiple applied and theoretical uses: 

The definition, principles and behavioural indicators can be consistently adopted by governments, public health agencies, gambling help services, community agencies and the gambling industry to promote a consistent responsible consumption of gambling message to the population. Promoting a more consistent message and set of responsible consumption of gambling behaviours will enhance the resonance and effectiveness of public health campaigns, being based on an identifiable and evidence-based set of promoted behaviours.



Consumers will benefit from knowing a set of clear and consistently promoted behaviours that constitute responsible consumption of gambling, which could be used to guide their own gambling behavior, to assess their own and others’ gambling, and to recognise when their gambling is risky.



The BIRGS can be used as a simple self-assessment test for consumers. For example, it could be included as a self-appraisal tool on gambling-related websites to ask consumers: ‘Are you gambling responsibly? Take this simple quiz and find out’ along with helpful suggestions for how to change behaviour if appropriate. This self-assessment test could be an interesting, useful and easy-to-administer tool from a public health perspective.



Administering the BIRGS to a representative population sample will enable the prevalence of responsible consumption of gambling to be ascertained. This prevalence could be measured both overall and in relation to sub-groups, such as gamblers on different forms of gambling, those using different modes (e.g., land-based, online, mobile), and gamblers with different socio-demographic characteristics. These prevalence estimates and analyses could then inform the targeting of public health messages, materials and media in terms of the gambling forms, gambling modes and socio-demographic groups displaying the least adoption of responsible consumption of gambling behaviours.



Detailed analyses of the types of responsible consumption of gambling behaviours that are most and least adopted will also inform public health campaigns to increase responsible consumption of gambling. These campaigns might focus on behaviours with low use to encourage their wider adoption.



The BIRGS will enable the monitoring over time of the ongoing public health of the community in relation to responsible consumption of gambling. Longitudinal research using


Page 118



the BIRGS could be used to evaluate the impacts of new responsible gambling initiatives, changes in gambling policy, and interventions aimed at promoting responsible gambling (e.g. pre-commitment). 

The BIRGS could also be used to assess the efficacy of industry responsible provision of gambling practices and to highlight specific responsible consumption of gambling behaviours they may or may not encourage in consumers. Such assessments would inform improved industry practices in responsible provision of gambling.



The BIRGS will provide an invaluable public health research and evaluation tool that can be used to assess responsible consumption of gambling amongst the population of gamblers, sub-groups of gamblers, patrons of specific venues, and diverse or vulnerable population groups.



Analysis of the association between responsible consumption of gambling behaviours and level of gambling consumption will help to identify a level (or range) of consumption most associated with responsible consumption of gambling behaviour, non-problem gambler status on the PGSI, and absence of gambling urges and harmful consequences from gambling. Doing so would provide evidence for which responsible consumption of gambling behaviours are related to reduced incidence of problem gambling and its adverse effects. This can inform public health information and advice so that promoted responsible consumption of gambling behaviours are based on evidence that supports their efficacy.



Responsible consumption of gambling needs to be promoted in a more meaningful way beyond the ‘gamble responsibly’ slogan to better assist consumers to maintain safe levels of gambling. The development of validated behaviours and guidelines, as well as specific safe gambling limits, will assist this effort.



Research could identify the terminology for responsible consumption of gambling/safe gambling/low-risk gambling that best resonates with gamblers from all gambler risk groups.



Continued efforts in developing and promoting responsible consumption of gambling indicators should be considered a complementary strategy for reducing the harm from gambling, and not as a replacement for industry and government responsibilities to ensure consumer protection and harm minimisation in gambling.


Page 119



References Abbott, M, Bellringer, M, Garrett, N & Mundy-McPherson, S 2014a, New Zealand 2012 National Gambling Study: overview and gambling participation – report no. 1, Ministry of Health, Wellington. Abbott, M, Bellringer, M, Garrett, N & Mundy-McPherson, S 2014b, New Zealand 2012 National Gambling Study: gambling harm and problem gambling – report no. 2, Ministry of Health, Wellington. Allcock, C, Blaszczynski, A, Dickerson, M, Earl, K, Haw, J, Ladouceur, R, Lesieur, H, McCorriston, T, Milton, S & Symond, P 2002, Current issues related to identifying the problem gambler in the gambling venue, Australian Gaming Council, Melbourne. Allen Consulting Group 2010, What is responsible gambling?, Responsible Gambling Advocacy Centre, Melbourne. Amey, B 2001, People’s participation in and attitudes to gaming, 1985–2000: final results of the 2000 survey, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington. Ariyabuddhiphongs, V 2011, ‘Before, during and after measures to reduce gambling harm’, Addiction, 106(1), pp. 12–13. Ariyabuddhiphongs, V 2013, ‘Problem gambling prevention: before, during, and after measures’, International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, vol. 11(5), pp. 568–82. Auer, M & Griffiths, MD 2013, ‘Voluntary limit setting and player choice in most intense online gamblers: an empirical study of gambling behaviour’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 29(4), pp. 647–60. doi: 10.1007/s10899-012-9332-y. Babor, T 2010a, Alcohol: no ordinary commodity – research and public policy, Oxford University Press. Babor, T 2010b, Drug policy and the public good, Oxford University Press. Bell, K, Salmon, A & McNaughton, D 2011, ‘Alcohol, tobacco, obesity and the new public health’, Critical Public Health, vol. 21(1), pp.1–8. Bellringer, M, Coombes, R, Pulford, J & Abbott, M 2010, Formative investigation into the effectiveness of gambling venue exclusion processes in New Zealand, retrieved from www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/problem-gambling-formative-investigationreport-final.pdf. Bernhard, BJP, Lucas, AFP, Jang, DP & Kim, JP 2008, ‘Responsible gaming device research report’, Gaming Research & Review, vol. 12(1/2), pp. A1–A56. Bernhard, BJ, Lucas, AF & Dongsuk, J 2006, Responsible gaming device research report, International Gaming Institute, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Binde, P 2009, ‘Exploring the impact of gambling advertising: an interview study of problem gamblers’, International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, vol. 7(4), pp. 541–54.


Page 120



Binde, P 2014, Gambling advertising: a critical research review, Responsible Gambling Trust, London. Blaszczynski, A, 1985, ‘Pathological gambling: illness or myth?’, in Gambling in the 80’s: National Association for Gambling Studies conference proceedings, Griffith University, Brisbane, pp. 196–201. Blaszczynski, A & Nower, L 2002, ‘A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction’, vol. 97, pp. 487–99. Blaszczynski, A, Collins, P, Fong, D, Ladouceur, R, Nower, L, Shaffer, HJ & Venisse, J 2011, ‘Responsible gambling: general principles and minimal requirements’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 27(4), pp.565–73. doi: 10.1007/s10899-010-9214-0. Blaszczynski, A, Gainsbury, S & Karlov, L 2014, ‘Blue gum gaming machine: an evaluation of responsible gambling features’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 30(3), pp. 697–712. doi: 10.1007/s10899-013-9378-5. Blaszczynski, A, Ladouceur, R & Nower, L 2007, ‘Self-exclusion: a proposed gateway to the treatment model’, International Gambling Studies, vol. 7(1), pp. 59–71. Blaszczynski, A, Ladouceur, R & Shaffer, HJ 2004, ‘A science-based framework for responsible gambling: the Reno model’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 20(3), pp. 301–17. doi: 10.1023/B:JOGS.0000040281.49444.e2. Blaszczynski, A, Ladouceur, R, Nower, L & Shaffer, H 2008, ‘Informed choice and gambling: principles for consumer protection’, Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, vol. 2, pp. 103–18. Boreham, P, Laffan, W, Johnston, J, Southwell, J & Tighe, M 2006, Responsible gambling strategy for older Queenslanders: final report, University of Queensland Social Research Centre, St Lucia. Boutin, C, Tremblay, N & Ladouceur, R 2009, ‘Impact of visiting an onsite casino information centre on perceptions about randomness and gambling behaviours’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 25, pp. 317–30. British Columbia Provincial Health Officer 2013, Lower the stakes: a public health approach to gambling in British Columbia – Provincial Health Officer’s 2009 annual report, Ministry of Health, Victoria, BC. Broda, A, LaPlante, DA, Nelson, SE, LaBrie, RA, Bosworth, LB & Shaffer, HJ 2008, ‘Virtual harm reduction efforts for Internet gambling: effects of deposit limits on actual Internet sports gambling behavior’, Harm Reduction Journal, vol.5(1), p. 27. doi: 10.1186/1477-7517-5-27. Brown, A 2008, Gambling and self-regulation, Guelph, ON, University of Guelph, retrieved from ezproxy.scu.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2 008-99140-150&site=ehost-live, available from EBSCOhost psych database. Campbell, CS & Smith, GJ 2003, ‘Gambling in Canada: from vice to disease to responsibility – a negotiated history’, Canadian Bulletin of Medical History, vol. 20(1), pp. 121–49.


Page 121



Cantinotti, M & Ladouceur, R 2008, ‘Harm reduction and electronic gambling machines: does this pair make a happy couple or is divorce foreseen?’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 24(1), pp. 39–54. doi: 10.1007/s10899-007-9072-6. Carlson, MJ & Moore, TL 1998, Adolescent gambling in Oregon: a report to the Oregon Gambling Addiction Treatment Foundation, Oregon Gambling Addiction Treatment Foundation, Salem. Castellani, B 2000, Pathological gambling: the making of a medical problem, Suny Press, Albany, New York. Cohen, IM, McCormick, AV & Corrado, RR 2011, BCLC’s voluntary self-exclusion program, British Columbia Centre for Social Responsibility, retrieved from hdl.handle.net/1880/49721. Cosgrave, J 2008, ‘Goffman revisited: action and character in the era of legalized gambling’, International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, vol. 1(1), pp. 80–96. Cunningham, JA 2005, ‘Little use of treatment among problem gamblers’, Psychiatric Services, vol. 56(8), pp. 1024–5. Cunningham, JA, Hodgins, DC, Toneatto, T, Rai, A & Cordingley, J 2009, ‘Pilot study of a personalized feedback intervention for problem gamblers’, Behavior Therapy, vol. 40(3), pp. 219– 24. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2008.06.005. Currie, CL, Schopflocher, DP & Wild, TC 2011, ‘Prevalence and correlates of 12-month prescription drug misuse in Alberta’, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 56(1), pp. 27–34. Currie, SR, Hodgins, DC, Wang, JL, el-Guebaly, N, Wynne, H & Chen, S 2006, ‘Risk of harm among gamblers in the general population as a function of level of participation in gambling activities’, Addiction, vol. 101(4), pp. 570–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01392.x. Currie, SR, Hodgins, DC, Wang, J, El-Guebaly, N & Wynne, H 2008a, ‘In pursuit of empirically based responsible gambling limits’, International Gambling Studies, vol. 8(2), pp. 207–27. doi: 10.1080/14459790802172265. Currie, SR, Hodgins, DC, Wang, J, El-Guebaly, N, Wynne, H & Miller, NV 2008b, ‘Replication of low-risk gambling limits using Canadian provincial gambling prevalence data’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 24(3), pp. 321–35. doi: 10.1007/s10899-008-9091-y. Currie, SR, Miller, N, Hodgins, DC & Wang, J 2009, ‘Defining a threshold of harm from gambling for population health surveillance research’, International Gambling Studies, vol. 9(1), pp. 19–38. Delfabbro, PH 2012, Australasian gambling review 5th edn, Independent Gambling Authority, Adelaide. Delfabbro, PH, Osborn, A, Nevile, M, Skelt, L & McMillen, J 2007, Identifying problem gamblers in gambling venues: final report, Gambling Research Australia, Melbourne. Delfabbro, P & King, D 2012, ‘Gambling in Australia: experiences, problems, research and policy’, Addiction, vol. 107(9), pp. 1556–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03802.x. Delfabbro, P, Borgas, M & King, D 2012, ‘Venue staff knowledge of their patrons’ gambling and problem gambling’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 28(2), pp. 155–69.


Page 122



Department of Justice and Attorney General 2012, Queensland Household Gambling Survey 2011–12, retrieved from publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/liquor-and-gamblingresearch/resource/79c83075-5dd6-48f7-84b1-8bd6b106eaff?inner_span=True. Derevensky, J, Sklar, A, Gupta, R & Messerlian, C 2010, ‘An empirical study examining the impact of gambling advertisements on adolescent gambling attitudes and behaviors’, International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, vol. 8(1), pp. 21–34. Dickerson, MG 1998, ‘EGM players and responsible gambling’, in G Coman (ed.), National Association for Gambling Studies Practitioners conference proceedings, National Association for Gambling Studies, Melbourne, pp. 33–42. Dickerson, MG 2003, ‘Exploring the limits of responsible gambling: harm minimisation or consumer protection?’, Gambling Research, vol. 15(1), p. 29. Dickson-Gillespie, L, Rugle, L, Rosenthal, R & Fong, T 2008, ‘Preventing the incidence and harm of gambling problems’, The Journal of Primary Prevention, vol. 29(1), pp. 37–55. Disley, E, Pollitt, A, Culley, D & Rubin, J 2011, Mind the gap: a critical review of the literature on gambling-related harm, Responsible Gambling Fund, London. Dzik, B 2006, ‘Between consumption and investment: a new approach to the study of the motivation to gamble’, Journal of Gambling Issues, vol. 17. doi: 10.4309/jgi.2006.17.4. Felsher, J, Derevensky, J & Gupta, R 2003, ‘Parental influences and social modeling of youth lottery participation’, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, vol. 13, pp. 361–77. Ferris, J & Wynne, H 2001, The Canadian problem gambling index: final report, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Ottawa. Financial Counselling Australia 2015, Duds, mugs and the A-list: a report into the impact of uncontrolled sports betting, Financial Counselling Australia, Melbourne. Gainsbury, S 2010, Self-exclusion: a comprehensive review of the evidence, Problem Gambling Research Centre, Guelph, Ontario. Gainsbury, SM 2014, ‘Review of self-exclusion from gambling venues as an intervention for problem gambling’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 30(2), pp. 229–51. doi: 10.1007/s10899-0139362-0. Gainsbury, SM, Blankers, M, Wilkinson, C, Schelleman-Offermans, K & Cousijn, J 2014, ‘Recommendations for international gambling harm-minimisation guidelines: comparison with effective public health policy’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 30(4), pp. 771–88. doi: 10.1007/s10899-013-9389-2. Gainsbury, S, Parke, J & Suhonen, N 2013, ‘Consumer attitudes towards Internet gambling: perceptions of responsible gambling policies, consumer protection, and regulation of online gambling sites’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 29(1), pp. 235–45. Gordon, R, Gurrieri, L & Chapman, M 2015, ‘Broadening an understanding of problem gambling: the lifestyle consumption community of sports betting’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 68(10), pp. 2164–72.


Page 123



Government of South Australia 2010a, ChangeTracker evaluation trial of a manual precommitment card: final report to South Australian Responsible Gambling Working Party, retrieved from www.treasury.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/1562/changetracker-card-trial-report.pdf. Government of South Australia 2010b, Supporting customer commitment: fourth progress report to the Minister for Gambling by the Responsible Gambling Working Party, retrieved from www.treasury.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/2153/Fourth-Progress-Report.pdf. Grant, J & Kim, S 2001, ‘Demographic and clinical features of 131 adult pathological gamblers’, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, vol. 62, pp. 957–62. Griffiths MD 1999, ‘Gambling technologies: prospects for problem gambling’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 15(3) pp. 265–83. Griffiths, MD, Wood, RTA & Parke, J 2009, ‘Social responsibility tools in online gambling: a survey of attitudes and behaviour among Internet gamblers’, Cyber Psychology & Behaviour, vol. 12(4), pp. 413–21. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2009.0062. Gupta, R & Derevensky, JL 1998, ‘Adolescent gambling behavior: a prevalence study and examination of the correlates associated with problem gambling’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 14(4), pp. 319–45. Hagen, B, Nixon, G & Solowoniuk, J 2005, ‘Stacking the odds: a phenomenological study of nonproblem gambling in later life’, Canadian Journal on Aging, vol. 24(04), pp. 433–42. Hancock, L, Schellinck, T & Schrans, T 2008, ‘Gambling and corporate social responsibility (CSR): re-defining industry and state roles on duty of care, host responsibility and risk management’, Policy and Society, vol. 27(1), pp. 55–68. doi: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2008.07.005. Hare, S 2009, A study of gambling in Victoria: problem gambling from a public health perspective, Victorian Department of Justice, Melbourne. Hare, S 2010, ‘A commentary relating to the Productivity Commission recommendations about precommitment: three key challenges’, Gambling Research, vol. 22(2), p. 13. Hawks, D 1997, ‘Has dealing with alcohol anything to teach us in relation to gambling?’, National Association for Gambling Studies Conference Proceedings, Melbourne. Hing, N 2001, ‘Changing the odds: a study of corporate social principles & practices in addressing problem gambling’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 33(2), pp. 115–44. Hing, N 2002, ‘The emergence of problem gambling as a corporate social issue in Australia’, International Gambling Studies, vol. 2(1), pp. 101–22. Hing, N 2003a, ‘Principles, processes & practices in responsible provision of gambling: a conceptual discussion’, Gaming Research & Review, vol. 7(1), pp. 33–48. Hing, N 2003b, An assessment of member awareness, perceived adequacy and perceived effectiveness of responsible gambling strategies in Sydney clubs, NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, Sydney.


Page 124



Hing, N 2004, ‘The efficacy of responsible gambling measures in NSW clubs: the gamblers' perspective’, Gambling Research, vol. 16(1), p. 32. Hing, N 2005, ‘Giving the gamblers a voice: the perceived efficacy of responsible gambling practices in NSW clubs’, Gambling Research, vol. 17(1), pp. 53–69. Hing, N 2009, Changing fortunes: past, present & future perspectives on the management of problem gambling by New South Wales clubs, VDM Publishing, Saarbrucken. Hing, N 2010, ‘The evolution of responsible gambling policy and practice: insights for Asia from Australia’, Asian Journal of Gambling Issues & Public Health, vol. 1(1), pp. 19–33. Hing, N & Nuske, E 2009, Assisting problem gamblers in the gaming venue: an assessment of responses provided by frontline staff, customer liaison officers and gambling support services to problem gamblers in the venue, Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation, Brisbane. Hing, N & Nuske, E 2012a, ‘Responding to problem gamblers in the venue: role conflict, role ambiguity and other challenges for hospitality staff’, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, vol. 11, pp. 1–19. Hing, N & Nuske, E 2012b, ‘The self-exclusion experience for problem gamblers in South Australia’, Australian Social Work, vol. 64(4), pp. 457–73. Hing, N, Cherney, L, Blaszczynski, A, Gainsbury, S & Lubman, D 2014, ‘Do advertising and promotions for online gambling increase gambling consumption? An exploratory study’, International Gambling Studies, vol. 14(3), pp. 394–409. doi: 10.1080/14459795.2014.903989. Hing, N, Cherney, L, Gainsbury, S, Lubman, D, Wood, R & Blaszczynski, A 2015, ‘Maintaining and losing control during Internet gambling: a qualitative study of gamblers’ experiences’, New Media and Society, vol. 17(7), pp. 1075–95. Hing, N, Dickerson, M & Mackellar, J 2001, Australian Gaming Council summary responsible gambling document, Australian Gaming Council, Melbourne. Hing, N, Lamont, M, Vitartas, P & Fink, E 2015a, ‘Sports-embedded gambling promotions: a study of exposure, sports betting intention and problem gambling amongst adults’, International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, vol. 13(1), pp. 115–35. doi: 10.1007/s11469-014-9519-9. Hing, N, Lamont, M, Vitartas, P & Fink, E 2015b, ‘How sports bettors respond to sports-embedded gambling promotions: implications for compulsive consumption’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 68, pp. 2057–66. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.003. Hing, N, Nisbet, S & Nuske, E 2010, Assisting problem gamblers in South Australian gaming venues, Independent Gambling Authority, Adelaide. Hing, N, Nuske, E & Holdsworth, L 2013, ‘How gaming venue staff use behavioural indicators to assess problem gambling in patrons’, Journal of Gambling Issues, vol. 28, pp. 1–25. doi: 10.4309/jgi.2013.28.17. Hing, N, Nuske, E & Gainsbury, S 2012, Gamblers at risk and their help-seeking behaviour, Gambling Research Australia, Melbourne.


Page 125



Hing, N, Russell, A, Nuske E & Gainsbury, S 2015, The stigma of problem gambling: causes, characteristics and consequences, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Melbourne. Hing, N, Russell, A, Tolchard, B & Nower, L 2015, ‘Risk factors for gambling problems: an analysis by gender’, Journal of Gambling Studies. doi: 10.1007/s10899-015-9548-8. Hing, N, Russell, A, Tolchard, B & Nuske, E 2015, ‘Are there distinctive outcomes from selfexclusion? An exploratory study comparing gamblers who have self-excluded, received counselling, or both’, International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, vol. 13(4), pp. 481–96. doi: 10.1007/s11469-015-9554-1. Hing, N, Sproston, K, Brading, R & Brook, K 2015, Review and analysis of sports and race betting inducements, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Melbourne. Hing, N, Sproston, K, Tran, K & Russell, AM T 2016, ‘Gambling responsibly: who does it and to what end?’, Journal of Gambling Studies, viewed online 5 May 2016. doi: 10.1007/s10899-0169615-9. Hing, N, Tolchard, B, Nuske, E, Holdsworth, L & Tiyce, M 2014, ‘A process evaluation of a selfexclusion program: a qualitative investigation from the perspective of excluders and nonexcluders’, International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, vol. 12(4), pp. 509–23. Hing, N, Vitartas, P, Lamont, M & Fink, E 2014, ‘Adolescent exposure to gambling promotions during televised sport: an exploratory study of links with gambling intentions’, International Gambling Studies, vol. 14(3), pp. 374–93. doi: 10.1080/14459795.2014.902489. Hodgins, DC & El-Guebaly, N 2000, ‘Natural and treatment-assisted recovery from gambling problems: a comparison of resolved and active gamblers’, Addiction, vol. 95(5), pp. 777–89. Hsieh, HF & Shannon, SE 2005, ‘Three approaches to qualitative content analysis’, Qualitative Health Research, vol. 15(9), pp. 1277–88. Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (IPART) 1998, Inquiry into gaming in NSW, Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW, Sydney. Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (IPART) 2004, Gambling: promoting a culture of responsibility, Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW, Sydney, retrieved from www.liquorandgaming.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/gaming-and-wagering/problems-withgambling/research/Promoting_Culture_of_Responsibility_2.pdf. Jackson, AC, Dowling, N, Thomas, SA & Holt, TA 2008, ‘Treatment careers in problem gambling: factors associated with first treatment and treatment re-entry’, Addiction Research and Theory, vol. 16(6), pp. 618–32. Kessler, RC, Hwang, I, LaBrie, RA, Petukhova, M, Sampson, NA, Winters, KC & Shaffer, HJ 2008, ‘DSM-IV pathological gambling in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication’, Psychological Medicine, vol. 38(9), pp. 1351–60. Kim, HS, Wohl, MJA, Stewart, MJ, Sztainert, T & Gainsbury, SM 2014, ‘Limit your time, gamble responsibly: setting a time limit (via pop-up message) on an electronic gaming machine reduces time on device’, International Gambling Studies, vol. 14(2), pp. 266–78.


Page 126



Korn, D 2005, Commercial gambling advertising: possible impact on youth knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behavioural intentions, Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre, Guelph, Ontario. Korn, D & Shaffer, H 1999, ‘Gambling and the health of the public: adopting a public health perspective’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 15(4), pp. 289–365. doi: 10.1023/A:1023005115932. Ladouceur, R & Sévigny, S 2003, ‘Interactive messages on video lottery terminals and persistence in gambling’, Gambling Research, vol. 15(1), p. 45. Ladouceur, R & Sévigny, S 2009, ‘Electronic gambling machines: influence of a clock, a cash display, and a precommitment on gambling time’, Journal of Gambling Issues, vol. 23, pp. 31–41. Ladouceur, R, Blaszczynski, A & Lalande, D 2012, ‘Pre-commitment in gambling: a review of the empirical evidence’, International Gambling Studies, vol. 12(2), pp. 215–30. Ladouceur, R, Jacques, C, Giroux, I, Ferland, F & Leblond, J 2000, ‘Analysis of a casino's selfexclusion program’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 16(4), pp. 453–60. Ladouceur, R, Sylvain, C & Gosselin, P 2007, ‘Self-exclusion program: a longitudinal evaluation study’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 23(1), pp. 85–94. doi: 10.1007/s10899-006-9032-6. Ladouceur, R, Sylvain, C, Boutin, C & Doucet, C 2002, Understanding and treating pathological gamblers, Wiley, London. Lalande, DR & Ladouceur, R 2011, ‘Can cybernetics inspire gambling research? A limit-based conceptualization of self-control’, International Gambling Studies, vol. 11(2), pp. 237–52. Lee, HP, Chae, PK, Lee, HS & Kim, YK 2007, ‘The five-factor gambling motivation model’, Psychiatry Research, vol. 150(1), pp. 21–32. Lee, HS, Lemanski, J & Jun, JW 2008, ‘Role of gambling media exposure in influencing trajectories among college students’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 24(1), pp. 25–37. Livingstone, C & Woolley, R 2007, ‘Risky business: A few provocations on the regulation of electronic gaming machines’, International Gambling Studies, vol. 7(3), pp. 361–76. Livingstone, C, Rintoul, A & Francis, L 2014, ‘What is the evidence for harm minimisation measures in gambling venues?’, Evidence Base, vol. 2, pp. 1–24. Loba, P, Stewart, SH, Klein, RM & Blackburn, JR 2001, ‘Manipulations of the features of standard video lottery terminal (VLT) games: effects in pathological and non-pathological gamblers’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 17(4), pp. 297–320. Lostutter, TW, Lewis, MA, Cronce, JM, Neighbors, C & Larimer, ME 2014, ‘The use of protective behaviors in relation to gambling among college students’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 30(1), pp. 27–46. doi: 10.1007/s10899-012-9343-8. Lubman, D, Rodda, S, Hing, N, Cheetham, A, Cartmill, T, Nuske, E, Hodgins, D & Cunningham, J 2015, Gambler self-help strategies: a comprehensive assessment of self-help strategies and actions used by gamblers, Gambling Research Australia, Melbourne.


Page 127



Lucar, C, Wiebe, J & Philander, K 2013, Monetary limits tools for internet gamblers: a review of their availability, implementation and effectiveness online, retrieved from www.responsiblegambling.org/docs/research-reports/monetary-limits-tools-for-internetgamblers.pdf?sfvrsn=8. Lucas, AF 2004, ‘Estimating the impact of match-play promotional offers on the blackjack business volume of a Las Vegas hotel casino’, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, vol. 17(4), pp. 23–33. Lucas, AF & Bowen, JT 2002, ‘Measuring the effectiveness of casino promotions’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 21(2), pp. 189–202. Lucas, AF & Santos, J 2003, ‘Measuring the effect of casino-operated restaurant volume on slot machine business volume: an exploratory study’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, vol. 27(1), pp. 101–17. Lucas, AF, Dunn, WT & Singh, AK 2005, ‘Estimating the short-term effect of free-play offers in a Las Vegas hotel casino’, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, vol. 18(2), pp. 53–68. Ly, C 2010, A study investigating the use and effectiveness of the Tasmanian gambling (self) exclusion program, Department of Health and Human Services, Hobart, retrieved from www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/76347/DHHS_GSP_Self_Exclusion_study_2010 _webprint_Final_B.pdf. Ly, C 2011, ‘A Tasmanian study investigating the perspectives of a small group of self-excluders on the impact of self-exclusion on gambling behaviour’, Gambling Research, vol. 23(1), p. 24. Maddern, RL 2004, ‘The limit maintenance model: temptation and restraint in gambling’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Western Sydney, Penrith. McDonnell-Phillips 2006, Analysis of gambler precommitment behaviour, Gambling Research Australia, Melbourne. McMillen, J 1996, ‘Perspectives on Australian gambling policy: changes and challenges’, paper presented at the National Conference on Gambling, Darling Harbour, Sydney. McMillen, J 1997, ‘When gambling is a problem: implications for public health’, Consumer Rights Journal, vol. 1(3), pp. 10–13. McMillen, J & Pitt, S 2005, Review of the ACT government’s harm minimisation measures, The Australian National University Centre for Gambling Research, Canberra. McMillen, J, Marshall, D & Murphy, L 2004, ‘The use of ATMs in ACT gaming venues: an empirical study’, Australian National University, Canberra. McMullan, JL & Kervin, M 2012, ‘Selling Internet gambling: advertising, new media and the content of poker promotion’, International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, vol. 10(5), pp. 622–45. McMullan, JL & Miller, D 2008, ‘All in! The commercial advertising of offshore gambling on television’, Journal of Gambling Issues, vol. 22, not paginated.


Page 128



McMullan, JL & Miller, D 2009, ‘Wins, winning and winners: the commercial advertising of lottery gambling’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 25, pp. 273–95. McMullan, JL & Miller, D 2010, ‘Advertising the ‘new fun tier’: selling casinos to consumers’, International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, vol. 8, pp. 35–50. Milner, L, Hing, N, Vitartas, P & Lamont, M 2013, ‘An exploratory study of embedded gambling promotion in Australian football television broadcasts’, Communication, Politics and Culture, vol. 46, pp. 177–98. Monaghan, S 2008, ‘Review of pop-up messages on electronic gaming machines as a proposed responsible gambling strategy’, International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, vol. 6(2), pp. 214–22. Monaghan, S 2009, ‘Responsible gambling strategies for Internet gambling: the theoretical and empirical base of using pop-up messages to encourage self-awareness’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 25(1), pp. 202–07. Monaghan, S & Blaszczynski, A 2009, ‘Electronic gaming machine warning messages: information versus self-evaluation’, Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, vol. 144(1), pp. 83–96. Monaghan, S & Blaszczynski, A 2010, ‘Impact of mode of display and message content of responsible gambling signs for electronic gaming machines on regular gamblers’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 26(1), pp. 67–88. Moore, SM, Thomas, AC, Kyrios, M & Bates, G 2012, ‘The self-regulation of gambling’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 28(3), pp. 405–20. doi: 10.1007/s10899-011-9265-x. Neal, P, Delfabbro, P & O’Neil, M 2005, Problem gambling and harm: towards a national definition, Gambling Research Australia, Melbourne. Nelson, SE, Kleschinsky, JH, LaPLante, DA, Gray, HM & Shaffer, HJ 2013, A benchmark study for monitoring exposure to new gambling opportunities, Division on Addiction, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Nelson, SE, LaPlante, DA, Peller, AJ, Schumann, A, LaBrie, RA & Shaffer, HJ 2008, ‘Real limits in the virtual world: self-limiting behavior of internet gamblers’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 24(4), pp. 463–77. doi: 10.1007/s10899-008-9106-8. Nowatzki, N & Williams, RJ 2002, ‘Casino self-exclusion programmes: a review of the issues’, International Gambling Studies, vol. 2, pp. 3–25. Nower, L & Blaszczynski, A 2010, ‘Gambling motivations, money-limiting strategies, and precommitment preferences of problem versus non-problem gamblers’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 26(3), pp. 361–72. doi: 10.1007/s10899-009-9170-8. Omnifacts Bristol Research 2005, Nova Scotia player card research project: stage I research report, retrieved from nsgc.ca/research/responsible_gaming_device_research_project/. Omnifacts Bristol Research 2007, Nova Scotia player card research project: stage III research report, retrieved from nsgc.ca/research/responsible_gaming_device_research_project/.


Page 129



Pallesen, S, Mitsem, M, Kvale, G, Johnsen, BH & Molde, H 2005, ‘Outcome of psychological treatments of pathological gambling: a review and meta-analysis’, Addiction, vol. 100(10), pp. 1412 ff. Parke, A, Harris, A, Parke, J, Rigbye, J & Blaszczynski, A 2014a, ‘Facilitating awareness and informed choice in gambling’, The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, vol. 8(3), pp. 6–20. Parke, A, Harris, A, Parke, J, Rigbye, J & Blaszczynski, A 2014b, ‘Facilitating player control in gambling’ The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, vol. 8(3), pp. 36–51. Parke, A, Harris, A, Parke, J, Rigbye, J & Blaszczynski, A 2015, ‘Responsible marketing and advertising in gambling: a critical review’, The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, vol. 8(3), pp. 21–35. Parke, J, Rigbye, J & Parke, A 2008, Cashless and card-based technologies in gambling: a review of the literature, retrieved from www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/Cashless%20and%20card%20based%20technologies%20lit erature%20review%20-%20Dec%202008.pdf. Petry, NM 2005, ‘Stages of change in treatment-seeking pathological gamblers’, Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, vol. 73, pp. 312–22. Pran, KR & Ukkelberg, A 2010, Playing habits and problems in population 2010, Synovate Norway. Preston, FW, Bernhard, BJ, Hunter, RE & Bybee, SL 1998, ‘Gambling as stigmatized behavior: regional relabeling and the law’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 556(1), pp. 186–96. Productivity Commission 1999, Australia’s gambling industries: report no. 10, AusInfo, Canberra. Productivity Commission 2010, Gambling: report no. 50, Australian Government, Canberra. Raylu, N & Oei, TPS 2004, ‘The gambling urge scale: development, confirmatory factor validation, and psychometric properties’, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, vol. 18(2), pp. 100–05. Reith, G 2003, Gambling: who profits?, Prometheus Books, New York. Reith, G 2007, ‘Gambling and the contradictions of consumption: a genealogy of the “pathological” subject’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 51(1), pp. 33–55. Reith, G 2008, ‘Editorial: reflections on responsibility’, Journal of Gambling Issues, vol. 22, pp. 149–55. Responsible Gambling Council 2008, From enforcement to assistance: evolving best practices in self exclusion, Responsible Gambling Council, Toronto. Responsible Gambling Council 2010, Insight 2010: informed decision making, retrieved from www.responsiblegambling.org/rg-news-research/rgc-centre/insight-projects/docs/defaultsource/research-reports/informed-decision-making.


Page 130



Responsible Gambling Council 2012, Insight 2012: responsible gambling for lotteries, retrieved from www.responsiblegambling.org/docs/default-source/research-reports/responsible-gamblingfor-lotteries.pdf?sfvrsn=6. Rockloff, MJ, Donaldson, P & Browne, M 2014, ‘Jackpot expiry: an experimental investigation of a new EGM player-protection feature’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 31(4), pp. 1505–14. Rosecrance, J, 1985, ‘Compulsive gambling and the medicalization of deviance’, Social Problems, February, pp. 275–84. Ryan, RM & Deci, EL 2000, ‘Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 54–67. Samson, T, Rossen, F & Hoque, E 2012, ‘The New Zealand gaming and betting survey: Chinese and Indian people's experience’, International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care, vol. 8(2), pp. 98–106. Saugeres, L, Thomas, A, Moore, S & Bates, G 2012, Gamblers tell their stories: life patterns of gambling, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Melbourne. Savage, B & Murray, R 2011, CAMH response to AGCO regulatory review of responsible gambling, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, retrieved from www.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/influencing_public_policy/Documents/AGCO response 1018 final.pdf. Schellinck, T & Schrans, T 1998, Nova Scotia VL player’s survey, Nova Scotia Department of Health, Halifax. Schellinck, T & Schrans, T 2004, ‘Identifying problem gamblers at the gaming venue: finding combinations of high confidence indicators’, Gambling Research, vol. 16(1), pp. 8–24. Schottler Consulting 2009a, Major findings of a trial of a card-based gaming product at the Redcliffe RSL, retrieved from publications.qld.gov.au/storage/f/2014-0620T02%3A50%3A11.495Z/report-into-card-based-gaming-cbg-trial-redcliffe-rsl.pdf. Schottler Consulting 2009b, Major findings of a trial of a card-based gaming product at the Sandgate RSL, retrieved from publications.qld.gov.au/storage/f/2014-0620T02%3A52%3A22.890Z/report-into-card-based-gaming-cbg-trial-sandgate-rsl.pdf. Schottler Consulting 2010a, Factors that influence gambler adherence to pre-commitment decisions, retrieved from www.gamblingresearch.org.au/home/research/gra+research+reports/factors+that+influence+a+ga mbler+pre-commitment+decisions+2010. Schottler Consulting 2010b, Major findings and implications: player tracking and precommitment trial – a program and outcome evaluation of the PlaySmart precommitment system, retrieved from www.treasury.sa.gov.au/public/download.jsp?id.3188. Schüll, ND 2012, Addiction by design: machine gambling in Las Vegas, Princeton University Press.


Page 131



Sharpe, L, Walker, M, Coughlan, MJ, Enersen, K & Blaszczynski, A 2005, ‘Structural changes to electronic gaming machines as effective harm minimization strategies for non-problem and problem gamblers’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 21(4), pp. 503–20. Slutske, WS 2006, ‘Natural recovery and treatment-seeking in pathological gambling: results of two U.S. national surveys’, The American Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 163(2), pp. 297–302. Smeaton, M & Griffiths, M 2004, ‘Internet gambling and social responsibility: an exploratory study’, CyberPsychology and Behavior, vol. 7(1), pp. 49–57. Sproston, K, Hanley, C, Brook, K, Hing, N & Gainsbury, S 2015, Marketing of sports betting and racing, Gambling Research Australia, Melbourne. Stacy, AW, Bender, PM & Flay, BR 1994, ‘Attitudes and health behavior in diverse populations: drunk driving, alcohol use, binge eating, marijuana use, and cigarette use’, Health Psychology, vol. 13, pp. 73–85. Stewart, MJ & Wohl, MJA 2013, ‘Pop-up messages, dissociation, and craving: how monetary limit reminders facilitate adherence in a session of slot machine gambling’, Psychology of Addictive Behaviours, vol. 27(1), pp. 268–73. Stewart, SH & Zack, M 2008, ‘Development and psychometric evaluation of a three‐dimensional gambling motives questionnaire’, Addiction, vol. 103(7), pp. 1110–17. Suh, E 2012, ‘Estimating the impact of free-play coupon value on players’ slot gaming volumes’, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, vol. 53(2), pp. 134–43. Suurvali, H, Hodgins, D, Toneatto, T & Cunningham, J 2008, ‘Treatment seeking among Ontario problem gamblers: results of a population survey’, Psychiatric Services, vol. 59(11), pp. 1343–6. Sylvan, R & Sylvan, L 1985, ‘The ethics of gambling’, in G Caldwell, B Haig, M Dickerson & L Sylvan (eds), Gambling in Australia, Croomhelm Australia Pty Ltd, Sydney, pp. 217–31. Tanford, S & Lucas, AF 2010, ‘The indirect impact of casual dining and low-end gaming in destination and local casinos’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 30(3), pp. 486–94. Tavares, H, Martins, SS, Zilberman, ML & el-Guebaly, N 2002, ‘Gamblers seeking treatment: why haven’t they come earlier?’, Addictive Disorders & Their Treatment, vol. 1(2), pp. 65–9. Thomas, AC, Moore, SM, Kyrios, M, Bates, G, Meredyth, D & Jessop, G 2010, Problem gambling vulnerability: the interaction between access, individual cognitions and group beliefs/preferences, Department of Justice, Melbourne. Thomas, A, Delfabbro, P & Armstrong, AR 2014, Validation study of in-venue problem gambler indicators, Gambling Research Australia, Melbourne. Thomas, A, Pfeifer, J, Moore, S, Meyer, D, Yap, L & Armstrong, A 2013, Evaluation of the removal of ATMs from gaming venues in Victoria, Australia, Department of Justice, Melbourne. Thomas, SL, Lewis, S & Duong, JC 2012, ‘Sports betting marketing during sporting events’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 36(2), pp. 145–52.


Page 132



Tongco, MDC 2007, ‘Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection’, Ethnobotany Research & Applications, vol. 5, pp. 147–58. Tuffin, A & Parr, V 2008, Evaluation of the 6 hour shutdown of electronic gaming machines in NSW, retrieved from www.liquorandgaming.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/gaming-andwagering/problems-with-gambling/research/3.%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20SixHour%20Shutdown%20of%20Electronic%20Gaming%20Machines%20in%20NSW%20%20April%202008.pdf. Turner, NE, Wiebe, J, Falkowski-Ham, A, Kelly, J & Skinner, W 2005, ‘Public awareness of responsible gambling and gambling behaviours in Ontario’, International Gambling Studies, vol. 5(1), pp. 95–112. doi: 10.1080/14459790500098044. Walker, DM, Litvin, SW, Sobel, RS & St-Pierre, RA 2014, ‘Setting win limits: an alternative approach to “responsible gambling”?’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 31(3), pp. 965–86. doi: 10.1007/s10899-014-9453-6. Walker, DM, Litvin, SW, Sobel, RS & St-Pierre, RA 2015, ‘Stopping while you’re ahead: win limits and responsible gambling’, Responsible Gambling Review, vol. 1(2), pp. 1–9. Weinstock, J, Ledgerwood, DM & Petry, NM 2007, ‘Association between post treatment gambling behaviour and harm in pathological gamblers’, Psychology of Addictive Behaviours, vol. 21(2), pp. 185–93. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.21.2.185. Williams, RJ & Gloster, SP 1999, ‘Knowledge of fetal alcohol syndrome in Northern Manitoba’, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, vol. 60(6), pp. 833–37. Williams, RJ, West, BL & Simpson, RI 2012, Prevention of problem gambling: a comprehensive review of the evidence and identified best practices, Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre, Guelph, Ontario. Wohl, MJA, Christie, KL, Matheson, K & Anisman, H 2010, ‘Animation-based education as a gambling prevention tool: correcting erroneous cognitions and reducing the frequency of exceeding limits among slots players’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 26(3), pp. 469–86. Wohl, MJA, Gainsbury, S, Stewart, MJ & Sztainert, T 2013, ‘Facilitating responsible gambling: the relative effectiveness of education-based animation and monetary limit setting pop-up messages among electronic gaming machine players’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 29(4), pp. 703–17. Wohl, MJA, Lyon, M, Donnelly, CL, Young, MM, Matheson, K & Anisman, H 2008, ‘Episodic cessation of gambling: a numerically aided phenomenological assessment of why gamblers stop playing in a given session’, International Gambling Studies, vol. 8, pp. 249–263. doi: 10.1080/14459790802405855. Wohl, MJA, Santesso, DL & Harrigan, K 2013, ‘Reducing erroneous cognition and the frequency of exceeding limits among slots players: a short (3-minute) educational animation facilitates responsible gambling’, International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, vol. 11(4), pp. 409–23. Wood, RT & Griffiths, MD 2015, ‘Understanding positive play: an exploration of playing experiences and responsible gambling practices’, Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 31(4), pp. 1715–34. doi: 10.1007/s10899-014-9489-7.


Page 133



Appendix A – Mapping of items from literature review and content analysis to expert survey Table A.1. Mapping of items from literature review and content analysis to expert survey Item in expert survey Ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable Set an affordable gambling budget Only gamble what you can afford to lose

Avoid borrowing money or getting money credit (including credit cards) to gamble with

Only gamble with money that is not needed for necessities such as bills, rent, food, etc.

Limit access to cash when gambling, such as by leaving bank cards at home or giving your wallet to someone you trust


Item(s) from literature review and content analysis Set goals Set a weekly entertainment budget Gamble only what is affordable Use only discretionary income to gamble Before going, work out how much money you can afford to lose Reduce limits of credit cards Cut up credit cards Cancel credit cards Use a debit card instead of a credit card online Mail your credit card to yourself after buying essentials to give yourself two days thinking time Have a debit rather than credit cards Do not borrow money to gamble Ask your friends not to lend you money if you exceed your spending limit Do not use credit cards to gamble Pay bills and groceries before gambling Have bill payments withdrawn automatically from bank account Gamble with money that is only from your weekly entertainment budget, not using money for necessities Require two signatures to withdraw money Ask someone else to manage your money Do not have an ATM or bank card Pay bills electronically, not in cash Transfer assets to partners name Get wages paid into a separate account Wages paid directly into bank account Wages collected by spouse Only take a certain amount of money to gamble Do not use ATMs to withdraw more money Leave ATM cards at home Ask someone else to hold bank/credit cards while at the gambling venue Only keep small amounts of cash on you Ask a reliable person to hold your money while at the gambling venue Reduce your access to cash Only carry as much cash as you need for the day Get a credit card without pin so money cannot be drawn from an ATM Avoid jobs handling cash

Page 134


Use only online gambling websites with daily spend limits Set deposit limits for Internet gambling accounts Keeping gambling in balance Prioritise your responsibilities (e.g., to family, friends, work, study) over gambling

Engage in other leisure activities, hobbies or interests other than gambling

Ensure that gambling doesn’t dominate your leisure time Ensure that gambling doesn’t dominate your thoughts when you are not gambling Ensure that you gamble in a way that does not cause harm or problems for other individuals Limiting persistence at gambling Set and stick to a limit on how often you gamble



Keep a record of your gambling (frequency, session length and/or expenditure)

Take frequent breaks when gambling



Use online sites with daily spend limits Set transfer limits Set deposit limits Do not let gambling interfere with daily responsibilities Plan an activity for afterward to be forced to stop gambling Book social obligations at times when you may want to gamble Make sure gambling does not take priority over friends, work, school and family Schedule additional recreational activities into routine Distract self with other activities Reduce frequency of play by engaging in other activities Balance gambling with other leisure activities Gamble in moderation Challenge your thoughts and beliefs Gamble in a way which does not cause harm or problems for other individuals Gamble no more than 2–3 times per month Gamble no more than 1.5 hours a month Arrange transport ahead of time and have a backup plan Instruct the doorman not to let them in again that day Walk away when limits are reached Spend no more than CAN$501–1000 per year on gambling Spend no more than 1–1.9% of income on gambling Setting monetary limits before leaving home/before gambling Keep a gambling budget and leave the venue once it is lost Exercise control over gambling Spend only coins Set time limits on play Set time limits in advance Set an alarm Have access to a watch or clock Arrive at the venue a short time before closing Track the amount of time spent gambling Keeping a gambling diary Check your history and card statements Keep track of bets Take frequent breaks Do not bet too quickly

Page 135


Engage in an activity other than gambling when first arriving at a gambling venue Set and stick to a limit on your maximum bet size when you gamble

Avoid chasing losses when gambling Avoid increasing bets when winning Avoid increasing bets when losing Cash out all or a portion of winnings and don’t gamble those winnings later in the session

Avoid betting on every race/sport/other gambling outcome Avoid betting on a gambling outcome during the event, only beforehand (e.g. for sports betting) Avoid having multiple online gambling accounts Understanding gambling Understand that gambling outcomes are affected by chance – that any skill will not ensure a win Understand that gambling for longer makes no difference to your chances of winning Understand that feeling lucky makes no difference to your chances of winning

Think about how long it took to save the money that you use to gamble Understand that you cannot win money from gambling in the long run Think about other things that the money spent on gambling could be used for Think about how you feel when your gambling money is gone Expect to lose when gambling Think about the possible negative consequences of gambling

Understand the odds before you gamble

Read the fine print on promotions before you enter them Ensure that you do not overestimate your skill at gambling



Postpone gambling by telling yourself to wait When you arrive at the venue, talk to someone/delay your gambling by 30 minutes. Play only low denomination EGMs Set limits of bets per EGM spin Buy small amounts of change when playing EGMs Only play one EGM at a time Set a win/loss limit Do not chase gambling losses Do not chase wins Never increase your bet when losing Separate gambling money from other money by using different pockets Move a portion of gambling chips out of sight to reduce temptation Only play with winnings Make a rule to cash out credit above a certain amount Hold onto all or a portion of your winnings Quit while ahead Do not bet on every race Do not change bets at the last minute Do not use multiple online gaming accounts Realize that knowing more will not guarantee a win Have realistic expectations about the likely outcome of gambling Added by the authors Do not believe the feeling that you can tell when an EGM is going to pay out Be aware of thoughts such as ‘I am lucky/on a winning streak’ Calculate how long you have to work to earn that money Expect to lose and see winning as a bonus Know that you cannot win in the long run Think about what else the money could buy Think about how you will feel after all the money is gone Consider losses the cost of recreation Remind self of the negative consequences of gambling Know the risks of gambling Think of the people who need your support Research a bet well Know the odds Learn about the chose gambling activity Read fine print on promotions Do not overestimate your abilities

Page 136


‘Positive’ motivations for gambling Only gamble for entertainment/fun/pleasure Avoid taking gambling too seriously, as it is just a game Avoid gambling when you feel depressed or upset Avoid gambling to relieve boredom Avoid gambling in order to make money Avoid gambling to impress or challenge other people Avoid gambling to pay bills A planned approach to gambling Schedule gambling sessions, to avoid gambling on impulse


Avoid being tempted to gamble by advertisements or promotions Avoid being tempted to gamble by family or friends Avoid visiting gambling venues or websites when you don’t plan to gamble

Avoid gambling with heavy gamblers Don’t give in to peer pressure to gamble Avoid gambling in the heat of the moment Use help and support if needed Seek professional gambling help if needed Self-exclude from gambling venues and/or websites if needed Block online gambling websites if needed Have someone in your life who you can talk to openly about gambling Ask a friend to call you at a designated time and remind you to leave or to stop gambling Develop a support network Call someone if you have the urge to gamble Do not gamble alone or with heavy gamblers



Gamble for entertainment, not to make money Remember that gambling is a game Do not take gambling too seriously Do not gamble when depressed, stressed, bored or upset Do not gamble when depressed, stressed, bored or upset See gambling as a game not a job Added by the authors Do not gamble to pay bills Avoid venues which have gambling facilities Place bets at TAB and leave to watch the match at home Go to venues only at set intervals/times Bet on a game before not during the event Do not gamble when recovering from any other form of dependency Do not gamble when taking certain medications (consult your GP) Do not drink/take substances when gambling Do not be influenced by gambling promotions Remove gambling pages from newspaper before reading Avoid high risk situations Avoid betting on hot tips Do not drive past favourite gambling venues Collect winnings when races are over the next day Keep children with you Wear jeans into the city Stop wearing shoes Do not gamble with friends that gamble heavily Do not give in to peer pressure when gambling Do not bet in the heat of the moment Seek professional help if required Self-exclude from gaming venues Block and exclude themselves from gambling websites by downloading software Block online gambling sites Verbally announce limits to others Have someone in your life who you can talk to openly about gambling Ask a friend to call you at a designated time and remind you to leave Develop a support network Call someone if you have the urge to gamble Gamble with others

Page 137



Appendix B – Expert survey instrument


Page 138



Qualtr ics Survey Softw are

18 /11/2015, 4 :17 PM

Ethics: The ethical aspects of this study have been approved by the Southern Cross University Human Research Ethics Committee. The approval number is ECN-15-184. If you have a complaint about the ethical conduct of this research study, you should contact the Ethics Complaints Officer. Complaints, in the first instance, should be addressed in writing to the following: Ethics Complaints Officer Division of Research Southern Cross University PO Box 157Lismore NSW 2480 Email: [email protected] Any complaint you make will be treated in confidence and investigated, and you will be informed of the outcome. Invited experts We have invited about 700 gambling researchers, regulators, treatment providers/counsellors and trainers to participate in this survey. Their contact details have been gained from publicly available sources, including university and organisational websites and conference delegate lists. Please do not forward the survey link to anyone else. Consent: Please indicate your consent to participate in this research by clicking on the button below to enter the online survey.

Respondent Details Respondent details The first few questions are about you and your work so that we can classify the results.

What is your gender? Male Female

What is your age?

ht t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview


Page 2 of 3 1

Page 139



Qualt r ics Survey Sof t w are

18 / 11/ 20 15, 4 :17 PM

What is your highest educational qualification? Year 10 or equivalent Year 12 or equivalent A trade, technical certificate or diploma A university or college degree Postgraduate qualifications

What is your main type of work in relation to gambling over the last 5 years? Research Policy/regulation Treatment/counselling Training/education Other (please specify)

What is your main disciplinary background? (e.g. Psychology, social work, economics, etc)

What type of organisation have you mainly worked in over the last 5 years? University Other research/consultancy organisation Government department or agency Counselling/treatment agency Other community services agency Hospital Training provider Other (please specify)

ht t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview Victorian ResponsiblerolPanel/Ajax.php?ac Gambling Foundation

Page 140

Page 3 of 3 1




18 /11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

What is your current appointment level? Level A/Associate Lecturer Level B/Lecturer/Teaching Fellow/Research Associate Level C/Senior or Principal Lecturer/Assistant Professor Level D/Reader/Associate Professor Level E/Professor

In which country is your current appointment?

Which country has most of your gambling work focussed on?

How many years have you been engaged in gambling-related work?

2 Defining responsible consumption of gambling Responsible gambling can be considered from two perspectives: a. responsible provision of gambling (i.e., relating to the policies and practices of gambling operators) b. responsible consumption of gambling (i.e., relating to the behaviours and cognitions of gamblers). In this survey, we are specifically considering responsible consumption of gambling, that is, what it means to gamble responsibly.

We would like to start by asking you to define the term responsible consumption of gambling. Please feel free to do so in your own words. There are no right or wrong answers. While it may be possible to refer to published work, we would appreciate you writing a definition in your own words.

ht t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview

Page 4 of 3 1 Page 141




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

What do you consider to be the essential goals or objectives of responsible consumption of gambling? Please list these below. Again, there are no right or wrong answers here.

Listed below are some terms and concepts that have been associated with responsible consumption of gambling. Which of these do you consider to be essential goals or objectives of responsible gambling consumption? Tick all that apply exercising informed choice about gambling low risk gambling non-problem gambling having no concerns about your gambling an enjoyable/pleasurable gambling experience gambling within an individual’s affordable limits of time, money and other resources absence of gambling-related harm minimisation of gambling-related harm staying in control of gambling avoiding developing a gambling problem avoiding risky gambling behaviours for gamblers to be responsible for their own gambling behaviour gambling that sustains wellbeing gambling that enhances wellbeing keeping gambling in balance with other activities and priorities understanding the risks associated with gambling self-regulating one’s own gambling ht t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation





18 /11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

adhering to pre-set time and money limits when gambling 3 Types of responsible gambling behaviours In this and the following sections, we ask you about various responsible gambling behaviours. It is important to note that some behaviours may only apply to specific sub-groups of gamblers. For example, items about online gambling only apply to those who gamble online. Similarly, items about skill do not refer to forms of gambling that are purely chance-based. Thus, please consider each item in relation to all gamblers unless it is clear to you that it refers only to a subset of gamblers (e.g., those who gamble online, those who play games that involve an element of skill, those who bet on sports and/or horse racing, etc). In that case, please answer it in relation to that type of gambler.

Please indicate how important you think each type of behaviour listed below is to gambling responsibly. Not at all important

Mildly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

Ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable (e.g. only gambling with disposable income, limiting access to cash) Limiting persistence at gambling (e.g. setting and adhering to time and money limits when gambling) Understanding gambling (e.g. understanding the role of chance, knowing the odds, expecting to lose in the long run) Keeping gambling in balance (e.g. prioritising responsibilities to friends and family, engaging in activities other than gambling) “Positive” motivations for gambling (e.g. gambling for entertainment rather than to make money, avoiding gambling to relieve boredom or when depressed or upset) A planned approach to gambling (e.g. scheduling gambling sessions and not gambling outside of these sessions, avoiding impulse betting) Use help and support if needed (e.g. use self-exclusion and ht t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview





18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

professional help) 4 Ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable Now we would like to ask you about specific behaviours in the Ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable category.

How important is adopting each of the following behaviours to non-problem gamblers, at-risk gamblers, and problem gamblers to help them to gamble responsibly?

Set an affordable gambling budget Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Only gamble what you can afford to lose Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Avoid borrowing money or getting money credit (including credit cards) to gamble with Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Only gamble with money that is not needed for necessities such as bills, rent, food, etc Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Non-problem Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation ht t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview

PagePage 144 7 of 3 1




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Limit access to cash when gambling, such as by leaving bank cards at home or giving your wallet to someone you trust Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Very important

Extremely important


Very important

Extremely important


Use only online gambling websites with daily spend limits Not at all important

Mildly important


Set deposit limits for Internet gambling accounts Not at all important

Mildly important


Are there any other responsible gambling behaviours relating to Ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable that you feel should be added to the above list?

5 Limiting persistence at gambling Now we would like to ask you about specific behaviours in the Limiting persistence category.

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview ht t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac

Page 145 Page 8 of 3 1




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM


Set and stick to a limit on how often you gamble Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Very important

Extremely important

Very important

Extremely important


Set and stick to a limit on how much money you spend when you gamble Not at all important

Mildly important



Set and stick to a limit on how long you gamble for each session Not at all important

Mildly important



Keep a record of your gambling (frequency, session length and/or expenditure) Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Take frequent breaks when gambling Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation ht t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview

Page 1469 of 3 1 Page




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

Engage in an activity other than gambling when first arriving at a gambling venue Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Set and stick to a limit on your maximum bet size when you gamble Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Avoid chasing losses when gambling Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Avoid increasing bets when winning Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Avoid increasing bets when losing Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Cash out all or a portion of winnings and don’t gamble those winnings later in the session Not at all important

Mildly important

ht t ps://s.qualt t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview Victorian rics.com/Cont Responsible rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac Gambling Foundation


Very important

Extremely important Page 10 of 3 1 Page 147




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM


Avoid betting on every race/sport/other gambling outcome Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Avoid betting on a gambling outcome during the event, only beforehand (e.g. for sports betting) Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Very important

Extremely important


Avoid having multiple online gambling accounts Not at all important

Mildly important


Are there any other responsible gambling behaviours that you feel should be added to the above list, in terms of limiting persistence at gambling?

6 Understanding gambling Now we would like to ask you about specific behaviours in the Understanding gambling category.

How important is adopting each of the following cognitions and behaviours to non-problem gamblers, at-risk gamblers, and problem gamblers to help them to gamble responsibly? Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation


Page 148

Page 11 of 3 1




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

Understand that gambling outcomes are affected by chance – that any skill will not ensure a win Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Understand that gambling for longer makes no difference to your chances of winning Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Understand that feeling lucky makes no difference to your chances of winning Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Very important

Extremely important

Very important

Extremely important


Think about how long it took to save the money that you use to gamble Not at all important

Mildly important



Understand that you cannot win money from gambling in the long run Not at all important

Mildly important



Think about other things that the money spent on gambling could be used for Not at all

Mildly



Moderately

Very

Extremely Page 12 of 3 1

Page 149




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

important

important

important

important

important


Think about how you feel when your gambling money is gone Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Expect to lose when gambling Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Think about the possible negative consequences of gambling Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very Important

Extremely Important


Very important

Extremely important


Understand the odds before you gamble Not at all Important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Read the fine print on promotions before you enter them Not at all important

Mildly important

Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation ht t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview





18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

Problem gamblers

Ensure that you do not overestimate your skill at gambling Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Are there any other responsible gambling behaviours that you feel should be added to the above list, in terms of Understanding gambling?

7 Keeping gambling in balance Now we would like to ask you about specific behaviours in the Keeping gambling in balance category.


Prioritise your responsibilities (e.g., to family, friends, work, study) over gambling Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Very important

Extremely important


Engage in other leisure activities, hobbies or interests other than gambling Not at all important

Mildly important





Page 151

Page 14 of 3 1




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

Ensure that gambling doesn’t dominate your leisure time Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Ensure that gambling doesn’t dominate your thoughts when you are not gambling Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Ensure that you gamble in a way that does not cause harm or problems for other individuals Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Are there any other responsible gambling behaviours that you feel should be added to the above list, in terms of Keeping gambling in balance?

8 “Positive” motivations for gambling Now we would like to ask you about specific behaviours in the “Positive” motivations for gambling category.


Only gamble for entertainment/fun/pleasure Not at all

Mildly


Moderately

Very

Extremely Page 152 Page 15 of 3 1




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

important

important

important

important

important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Very important

Extremely important


Avoid taking gambling too seriously, as it is just a game Not at all important

Mildly important


Avoid gambling when you feel depressed or upset Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Avoid gambling to relieve boredom Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Avoid gambling in order to make money Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Avoid gambling to impress or challenge other people Not at all important

Mildly important

Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Victorian rics.com/Cont Responsible rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac Gambling Foundation ht t ps://s.qualt t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview





18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

Problem gamblers

Avoid gambling to pay bills Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Are there any other responsible gambling behaviours that you feel should be added to the above list, in terms of “Positive” motivations for gambling?

9 A planned approach to gambling Now we would like to ask you about specific behaviours in the A planned approach to gambling category.


Schedule gambling sessions, to avoid gambling on impulse Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Very important

Extremely important


Avoid gambling when affected by alcohol or recreational drugs Not at all important

Mildly important








18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

Avoid being tempted to gamble by advertisements or promotions Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Very important

Extremely important


Avoid being tempted to gamble by family or friends Not at all important

Mildly important


Avoid visiting gambling venues or websites when you don’t plan to gamble Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Avoid gambling with heavy gamblers Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Don’t give into peer pressure to gamble Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Avoid gambling in the heat of the moment Not at all important

ht t ps://s.qualt t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview Victorianrics.com/Cont ResponsiblerolPanel/Ajax.php?ac Gambling Foundation

Page Page 155 18 of 3 1




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM


Are there any other responsible gambling behaviours that you feel should be added to the above list, in terms of A planned approach to gambling?

10 Use help and support if needed Now we would like to ask you about specific behaviours in the Use help and support if needed category.


Seek professional gambling help if needed Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Self-exclude from gambling venues and/or websites if needed Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Block online gambling websites if needed Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation


Page 156

Page 19 of 3 1




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

Have someone in your life who you can talk to openly about gambling Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important


Ask a friend to call you at a designated time and remind you to leave or to stop gambling Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important

Mildly important


Very important

Extremely important




Call someone if you have the urge to gamble Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Do not gamble alone or with heavy gamblers Not at all important Non-problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Problem gamblers

Are there any other responsible gambling behaviours that you feel should be added to the above list, in terms of Use help and support if needed? ht t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview






18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

11 In this survey, we have asked you about seven categories of responsible gambling consumption behaviour. Here is the list of them: 1. Ensuring gambling expenditure is affordable (e.g. only gambling with disposable income, limiting access to cash) 2. Limiting persistence at gambling (e.g. setting and adhering to time and money limits when gambling) 3. Understanding gambling (e.g. understanding the role of chance, knowing the odds, expecting to lose in the long run) 4. Keeping gambling in balance (e.g. prioritising responsibilities to friends and family, engaging in activities other than gambling) 5. “Positive” motivations for gambling (e.g. gambling for entertainment rather than to make money, avoiding gambling to relieve boredom or when depressed or upset) 6. A planned approach to gambling (e.g. scheduling gambling sessions and not gambling outside of these sessions, avoiding impulse betting) 7. Use help and support if needed (e.g. use self-exclusion and professional help) Are there any other types of behaviours that are essential to responsible gambling consumption that you feel should be added to the above list?

12 The concept of responsible gambling consumption






18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

Consider the average person who adheres to the aforementioned responsible gambling behaviours. How likely is it that such a person experiences:

Very unlikely

Unlikely

Neither likely nor likely

Likely

Very likely

Unlikely

Neither likely nor unlikely

Likely

Very likely

Unlikely

Neither likely nor unlikely

Likely

Very likely

Agree

Strongly Agree

No gambling-related harm Minor gambling-related harm Major gambling-related harm

How likely is it that such a person is a: Very Unlikely Non-problem gambler At-risk gambler Problem gambler

How likely is it that such a person: Very unlikely Experiences benefits for their health and wellbeing from their gambling Experiences no effects on their health and wellbeing from their gambling Experiences detriments for their health and wellbeing from their gambling

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

I understand what the term “responsible gambling” means I support the concept of responsible gambling Safe levels of gambling participation are possible There is no such thing as responsible gambling

ht t ps://s.qualt t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview Victorianrics.com/Cont ResponsiblerolPanel/Ajax.php?ac Gambling Foundation





18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

“Responsible gambling” is a meaningless term

Do you have any comments or concerns about the concept of responsible gambling consumption?

13 Who should responsible gambling consumption messages and guidelines target?

How strongly do you agree or disagree that responsible gambling messages and guidelines should target: Strongly disagree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly Agree

Problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Non-problem gamblers

How receptive do you think the following groups of gamblers are likely to be to the term “responsible gambling”? Not at all receptive

Mildly receptive

Moderately receptive

Very receptive

Problem gamblers At-risk gamblers Non-problem gamblers

Do you have any comments or concerns about who responsible gambling consumption messages should target?

14 Promotion of responsible gambling



Page 160

Page 23 of 3 1




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Strongly disagree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly Agree

It is important to promote the message to gamble responsibly to consumers The message to gamble responsibly is adequately promoted to consumers The term “responsible gambling” is generally understood by consumers Consumer guidelines for responsible gambling behaviours are adequately promoted Consumer guidelines for responsible gambling behaviours are appropriate Consumer guidelines for responsible gambling behaviours are evidence-based Responsible gambling consumption is promoted in a way that meaningfully assists consumers to gamble responsibly

How adequately do you think each of the following parties promotes responsible gambling consumption? Neither inadequately Extremely nor Extremely inadequately Inadequately adequately Adequately adequately Gambling venues (land-based and online) Government Public health / community education / responsible gambling agencies Gambling help services

How adequately do you think responsible gambling consumption is promoted for the following types of gambling, relative to their risks?

Extremely ht t ps://s.qualt t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview Victorianrics.com/Cont ResponsiblerolPanel/Ajax.php?ac Gambling Foundation

Neither inadequately nor

Extremely Page Page 161 24 of 3 1




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

inadequately Inadequately adequately Adequately adequately Electronic gaming machines Race betting Sports betting Casino games Lottery-type games Poker Keno Bingo

Do you have any comments or concerns about the promotion of responsible gambling consumption messages and behaviours?

15 Terminology What is the best terminology for responsible gambling consumption for the general public? (check one option only) Responsible gambling Low risk gambling Safe gambling Positive play Healthy gambling Moderate gambling Other (please specify)

Please explain why you selected this option in the above question.

Do you have any comments or concerns about the terminology used for responsible gambling Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation


Page 162

Page 25 of 3 1




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

consumption?

16 Who is responsible?

Whose responsibility is it to ensure that consumers gamble responsibly? For this question, we would like you to allocate percentages to each category in order to total 100%. So for example, if you think that gamblers bear half of the burden and gambling providers the other half, and no one else bears any burden, you would put 50% next to gamblers and 50% next to gambling operators, with 0% for the rest. Gamblers

0

Family and friends of gamblers

0

Gambling operators

0

Governments

0

The broader community

0

Public health/community education agencies

0

Gambling help services

0

Other (please specify)

0

Total

0

Some people contend that responsible gambling consumption places too much emphasis on gamblers to self-regulate their own gambling. Do you think that the emphasis on gamblers to self-regulate their own gambling is too much, too little or about right? Too little About Right Too Much

Some people contend that responsible gambling consumption places too little emphasis on gambling operators to provide safe gambling products and environments. Do you think that the emphasis on gambling operators to provide safe gambling products and environments is too much, too little or about right? Too little

Responsible Gambling Foundationt ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview htVictorian t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac





18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

About Right Too Much

Some people contend that responsible gambling places too little emphasis on governments to implement safe gambling policies. Do you think that the emphasis on government to provide safe gambling policies is too much, too little or about right? Too little About Right Too Much

Do you have any comments or concerns about who is responsible for ensuring that consumers gamble responsibly?

17 Responsible gambling limits Currie, Hodgins, Wang, el-Guebaly & Wynne (2008)1 developed “low risk limits” for gambling. Their analysis of national survey data by Statistics Canada (Canadian Community Health – Mental Health and Wellbeing, 2002) on the relationship between gambling involvement and risk of harm from gambling suggested the limits below. We have taken the liberty of repeating their previous survey questions about these limits here to gain an updated set of expert opinions.

We want your opinion of whether, from a practical standpoint, you feel these limits are very liberal, very conservative or just right. Please select a response for each scale: Note that the low-risk limit applies to any type of gambling (e.g., EGMs, casinos, bingo). Exceeding this limit significantly increases the chance of experiencing gambling-related harm (e.g., financial problems, health problems, betting more than can afford to lose, interpersonal difficulties). Note the limit on duration was derived from analysis of provincial survey data on gambling prevalence. Very conservative (1)

2

3

4

Just right (5)

6

7

8

Very liberal (9)

Frequency 2-3 times per month Duration 60 minutes per session Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation


Page 164

Page 27 of 3 1




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

Dollars spent on gambling CAN $500 to $1000 per year / US $400 to $800 per year / AUS $540 to $1080 per year Percent income 1% gross income

It may not be practical to promote low-risk limits across four different dimensions of gambling behaviour (frequency, duration, dollars spent, and percent income). Rate how important you feel each limit would be for further investigation and possible dissemination to the public. Not at all important

Mildly important


Very important

Frequency 2-3 times per month Duration 60 minutes per session Dollars spent on gambling CAN $500 to $1000 per year / US $400 to $800 per year / AUS $540 to $1080 per year Percent income 1% gross income

Do you have any comments or concerns about responsible gambling/low risk gambling limits?

1 Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., Wang, J., El-Guebaly, N., & Wynne, H. (2008). In pursuit of empirically based responsible gambling limits. International Gambling Studies, 8(2), 207-227.

18 Potential concerns with responsible gambling

We would now like to ask you about some concerns about responsible gambling that have been Responsible Gambling Foundationt ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview htVictorian t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac





18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

raised in the literature. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Strongly disagree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly Agree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly Agree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly Agree

The term “responsible gambling” is discouraging for people having difficulties controlling their gambling The term “responsible gambling” stigmatises people who are having difficulties controlling their gambling Responsible gambling guidelines may create a false sense of security amongst gamblers Gamblers adhering to responsible gambling guidelines may feel they are safe and impervious to gambling-related harm Problem gamblers may justify continuing to gamble if they adhere to responsible gambling guidelines Strongly disagree Responsible gambling guidelines may encourage more people to gamble Responsible gambling guidelines may encourage people who have stopped gambling to start again It is impossible to develop an evidence-based set of responsible gambling behaviours to guide consumers Responsible gambling guidelines need to be defined for each specific type of gambling Responsible gambling guidelines are not practical given large variations in people’s individual circumstances, disposable income, etc Strongly disagree Responsible gambling guidelines are insufficient to protect consumers from gambling-related harm Responsible gambling guidelines Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation ht t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac t ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview

Page Page166 29 of 3 1




18 / 11/ 2015, 4 :17 PM

are not useful to problem gamblers Responsible gambling guidelines will be ignored by consumers

Do you have any additional comments or concerns about responsible gambling guidelines?

19 Defining responsible gambling consumption

Now that you have answered these questions, we would like to ask you to revisit your definition of the term responsible gambling consumption. You stated that responsible gambling consumption is: "${q://QID15/ChoiceTextEntryValue}" Is there anything that you want to add to, remove from, or otherwise change about this definition now? If so, please insert your revised definition below.

We also asked you about the goals or objectives of responsible gambling consumption. You answered: "${q://QID16/ChoiceTextEntryValue}" Is there anything that you want to add to, remove from, or otherwise change about these goals or objectives now? If so, please insert your revised goals/objectives below.

20 Reimbursement for your time Responsible Gambling Foundationt ion=Get SurveyPrint Preview htVictorian t ps://s.qualt rics.com/Cont rolPanel/Ajax.php?ac





Page 168



Appendix C – Detailed results from the content analysis Managing overall finances Government websites Table C.1 summarises the strategies contained on each of the six government websites to support the strategy of ‘managing overall finances’. Only three of the seven strategies identified in the literature review for managing finances were also identified on government websites. These were endorsed only by the NSW Gambling Help website and workbook website. The strategy to reduce the limits on credit cards was identified on both of these websites.



Reduce limits of credit cards


Problem Gambling SA

Problem Gambling ACT

NSW Gambling Help Workbook

NSW Gambling Help

ACT Gambling and Racing Commission

Table C.1. Government websites: Strategies relating to managing overall finances



Pay bills and groceries before gambling Cut up credit cards Get a credit card without pin so money cannot be drawn from an ATM Have bill payments withdrawn automatically from bank account Require two signatures to withdraw money

 

Set goals Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site

0

1

3

0

0

0

0.0

14.3

42.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

Four of the six government websites examined provided additional strategies for managing finances not identified in the literature review (Table C.2).


Page 169



Gamble with money that is only from your weekly entertainment budget, not using money for necessities. Keeping a gambling diary


Problem Gambling SA



NSW Gambling Help


Table C.2. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to managing overall finances

 







Cancel credit cards Ask someone else to manage your money 

Have wage paid directly into bank account Do not have an ATM or bank card Pay bills electronically, not in cash



Set a weekly entertainment budget Use a debit card instead of a credit card online Check your history and card statements Have a debit rather than credit cards Get wages paid into a separate account Transfer assets to partners name Mail your credit card to yourself after buying essentials to give yourself two days thinking time Set transfer limits 

Wages collected by spouse Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site

0

1

3

0

3

1

0.0

6.3

18.8

0.0

18.8

6.3

Industry websites Table C.3 provides a list of the strategies suggested by industry websites for consumers to use when planning and managing their overall money, which were also identified in the literature review. Of the industry websites, Crown Perth was the only site which suggested financial management strategies to its consumers. The strategies identified were to pay bills and buy groceries prior to gambling, as well as to set financial goals.


Page 170



Tatts

Tom Waterhouse

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

28.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

Reduce limits of credit cards Pay bills and groceries before gambling Cut up credit cards Get a credit card without pin so money cannot be drawn from an ATM Have bill payments withdrawn automatically from bank account Require two signatures to withdraw money Set goals Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site

Crown Perth

0

Country Club Tasmania

0

Centrebet

0

Bet 365

Tabcorp

Crown Melbourne

Betfair Responsible Gambling


Table C.3. Industry websites: Strategies relating to managing overall finances





Three additional strategies which were proposed by industry websites but had not been identified in the literature are listed in Table C.4. These were to gamble with money set aside for entertainment and not necessities, to keep track of finance, money and time spent gambling in the form of a diary, and to set bank transfer limits to online betting accounts.


Page 171





Tom Waterhouse



Tatts



Tabcorp

Crown Perth


Centrebet


Crown Melbourne

Gamble with money that is only from your weekly entertainment budget, not using money for necessities. Keeping a gambling diary

Bet 365


Table C.4. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to managing overall finances







Cancel credit cards Ask someone else to manage your money Have wage paid directly into bank account Do not have an ATM or bank card Pay bills electronically, not in cash Set a weekly entertainment budget Use a debit card instead of a credit card online Check your history and card statements Have a debit rather than credit cards Get wages paid into a separate account Transfer assets to partners name Mail your credit card to yourself after buying essentials to give yourself two days thinking time Set transfer limits



Wages collected by spouse Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site

0

1

1

0

0

1

2

0

1

1

0.0

6.3

6.3

0.0

0.0

6.3

12.6

0

6.3

6.3

Help service websites Table C.5 lists the strategies suggested by help service websites for consumers to use when planning and managing their overall money, and which aligned with those in the literature review. Five of the seven strategies identified in the literature review were endorsed by help service websites. The most frequently suggested was to have bill payments withdrawn automatically from bank accounts, as cited by four of the 15 websites.


Page 172



Responsible Gambling Council (Ontario)

Salvation Army

VACSAL

Responsible Gambling Awareness Week

0

1

0

0

0

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

28.6

42.9

28.6

0.0

14.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Relationships Australia

2

Nebraska Council

3

Help guide

2

Gambling Impact Society NSW

0


0

Gamble Aware UK

0

Gamble Aware AU

0

Betsafe

0

Amity Reduce limits of credit cards Pay bills and groceries before gambling Cut up credit cards Get a credit card without pin so money cannot be drawn from an ATM Have bill payments withdrawn automatically from bank account Require two signatures to withdraw money Set goals Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site

BC Responsible & Problem Gambling

Table C.5. Help service websites: Strategies relating to managing overall finances













 

Additional strategies proposed by the help service websites, but which had not been identified in the literature review, are listed in Table C.6. Overall, 14 of the 16 additional strategies in this category were endorsed by the help service websites. The strategies which were not listed were setting transfer limits, and having wages collected by a spouse. The Gambling Impact Society NSW and Gambling Help Online websites identified a high proportion of financial management strategies in comparison to the other help service websites.


Page 173



Gamble with money that is only from your weekly entertainment budget, not using money for necessities. Keeping a gambling diary Cancel credit cards Ask someone else to manage your money Have wage paid directly into bank account Do not have an ATM or bank card Pay bills electronically, not in cash Set a weekly entertainment budget Use a debit card instead of a credit card online Check your history and card statements Have a debit rather than credit cards Get wages paid into a separate account Transfer assets to partners name Mail your credit card to yourself after buying essentials to give yourself two days thinking time Set transfer limits Wages collected by spouse Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site




























VACSAL

Salvation Army




Nebraska Council

Help guide



Gamble Aware UK

Gamble Aware AU

Betsafe


Amity

Table C.6. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to managing overall finances







        



1

2

1

0

0

6

7

1

0

3

2

1

0

2

6.3

12.6

6.3

0.0

0.0

37.5

43.8

6.3

0.0

18.8

12.8

6.3

0.0

12.8

Page 174



Monetary limits on gambling Government websites All government websites analysed promoted at least three RG strategies which involved using monetary limits and which had been identified in the literature review (Table C.7). The NSW Gambling Help workbook endorsed the most, proposing seven strategies related to setting limits on money. The most commonly supported strategies were gambling only what is affordable, not chasing losses, leaving ATM cards at home, as well as keeping a gambling budget and leaving once it is lost. Each of these strategies was suggested by four of the six government websites.







Problem Gambling SA



NSW Gambling Help


Table C.7. Government websites: Strategies relating to monetary limits









Use only discretionary income to gamble Only take a certain amount of money to gamble Before going, work out how much money you can afford to lose Set a win/loss limit

 

 

Setting monetary limits before leaving home/before gambling Keep a gambling budget and leave the venue once it is lost

















Spend no more than CAN$501–1000 per year on gambling Spend no more than 1–1.9% of income on gambling Do not borrow money to gamble Do not chase gambling losses


















4

5

7

3

3

4

18.2

22.7

31.8

13.6

13.6

18.2

Do not use ATMs to withdraw more money Ask someone else to hold bank/credit cards while at the gambling venue Ask a reliable person to hold your money while at the gambling venue Ask your friends not to lend you money if you exceed your spending limit. Separate gambling money from other money by using different pockets Move a portion of gambling chips out of sight to reduce temptation Play only low denomination EGMs Spend only coins Set limits of bets per EGM spin Only play with winnings Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site


Page 175



Seven of the 15 additional strategies relating to setting monetary limits were promoted on government websites (Table C.8). The NSW Gambling Help workbook site endorsed the most strategies in comparison to the other government sites, proposing six strategies. The Problem Gambling ACT and Problem Gambling South Australia websites each suggested one strategy.


Problem Gambling SA



NSW Gambling Help


Table C.8. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to monetary limits

Do not use credit cards to gamble Only keep small amounts of cash on you



Do not change bets at the last minute



Do not bet on every race



Buy small amounts of change when playing EGMs



Make a rule to cash out credit above a certain amount



Hold onto all or a portion of your winnings 

Reduce your access to cash



Only carry as much cash as you need for the day Keep track of bets Use online sites with daily spend limits Set deposit limits Never increase your bet when losing 

Do not chase wins Only play one EGM at a time Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site

0

0

6

1

1

0

0.0

0.0

40

6.7

6.7

0.0

Industry websites All industry websites except one examined proposed at least two of the strategies relating to setting and implementing monetary limits which had been identified in the literature review (Table C.9). The Tatts website identified the most strategies, with the most common strategy cited being to avoid chasing losses, listed by all but two of the industry operator websites.


Page 176



Gamble only what is affordable Use only discretionary income to gamble Before going, work out how much money you can afford to lose Only take a certain amount of money to gamble Set a win/loss limit Setting monetary limits before leaving home/before gambling Keep a gambling budget and leave the venue once it is lost Spend no more than CAN$501– 1000 per year on gambling Spend no more than 1–1.9% of income on gambling Do not borrow money to gamble



Do not chase losses











Tom Waterhouse

Tatts

Tabcorp

Crown Perth

Crown Melbourne


Centrebet


Bet 365


Table C.9. Industry websites: Strategies relating to monetary limits



 

 

































Leave ATM cards at home Do not use ATMs to withdraw more money Ask someone else to hold bank/credit cards while at the gambling venue Ask a reliable person to hold your money while at the gambling venue Ask your friends not to lend you money if you exceed your spending limit Separate gambling money from other money by using different pockets Move a portion of gambling chips out of sight to reduce temptation Play only low denomination EGMs Spend only coins Set limits of bets per EGM spin Only play with winnings Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site


0 0.0

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

3

9.1

13.6

13.6

13.6

13.6

13.6

13.6

18.2

13.6

Page 177



In analysing any additional strategies which were proposed by the industry websites, it was found that two websites proposed one additional strategy each. Betfair Responsible Gambling suggested setting deposit limits, while Country Club Tasmania encouraged consumers never to increase their bets when losing (Table C.10).

Crown Perth

Tabcorp

Tatts

Tow Waterhouse

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

0.0

6.7

0.0

6.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


0

Centrebet

0

Bet 365

Crown Melbourne



Table C.10. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to monetary limits

Do not use credit cards to gamble Only keep small amounts of cash on you Do not change bets at the last minute Do not bet on every race Buy small amounts of change when playing EGMs Make a rule to cash out credit above a certain amount Hold onto all or a portion of your winnings Reduce your access to cash Only carry as much cash as you need for the day Keep track of bets Use online sites with daily spend limits 

Set deposit limits



Never increase your bet when losing Do not chase wins Only play one EGM at a time Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site

Help service websites Eleven of the 14 help service websites reported RCG strategies relating to limiting money which were also found in the literature review (Table C.11). Gambling Help Online and the Gambling Impact Society NSW websites were found to promote the most strategies. The most commonly endorsed strategies included setting monetary limits before leaving home or before gambling, suggested by 11 help service websites and not chasing losses, suggested by nine sites.


Page 178




























































 

















VACSAL

Salvation Army

Responsible Gambling Council (Ontario) 



 







Nebraska Council




Help guide

Gamble Aware UK




Gamble Aware AU



Betsafe

Gamble only what is affordable Use only discretionary income to gamble Only take a certain amount of money to gamble Before going, work out how much money you can afford to lose Set a win/loss limit Set monetary limits before leaving home/before gambling Keep a gambling budget and leave the venue once it is lost Spend no more than CAN$501–1000 CAN per year on gambling Spend no more than 1– 1.9% of income on gambling Do not borrow money to gamble Do not chase gambling losses Leave ATM cards at home Do not use ATMs to withdraw more money Ask someone else to hold bank/credit cards while at the gambling venue Ask a reliable person to hold your money while at the gambling venue Ask your friends not to lend you money if you exceed your spending limit


Amity

Table C.11. Help service websites: Strategies relating to monetary limits



 











Page 179


Separate gambling money from other money by using different pockets Move a portion of gambling chips out of sight to reduce temptation Play only low denomination EGMs Spend only coins Set limits of bets per EGM spin Only play with winnings Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site


5

1

4

4

4

8

7

0

4

3

5

5

4

1

22.7

4.5

18.2

18.2

18.2

36.4

31.8

0.0

18.2

13.6

22.7

22.7

18.2

4.5

Additional suggestions for restricting money use and setting limits were proposed by eight of the 14 help service websites (Table C.12). Limiting or reducing access to cash was most commonly endorsed strategy by the sites, followed by not using credit cards to gamble. The strategy to cash out credits above a certain amount when playing EGMs was proposed by Relationships Australia, as well as in the NSW Gambling Help workbook government website. Although the NSW Gambling Help workbook does not specify an exact amount, Relationships Australia suggests $100 as the limit at which money should be cashed out of an EGM.


Page 180



Do not use credit cards to gamble Only keep small amounts of cash on you Do not change bets at the last minute



VACSAL

Salvation Army




Nebraska Council

Help guide



Gamble Aware UK

Gamble Aware AU

Betsafe

Amity


Table C.12. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to monetary limits





Do not bet on every race Buy small amounts of change when playing EGMs Make a rule to cash out credit above a certain amount Hold onto all or a portion of your winnings Reduce your access to cash Only carry as much cash as you need for the day

  





 

Keep track of bets Use online sites with daily spend limits



Set deposit limits Never increase your bet when losing Do not chase wins Only play one EGM at a time Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site


 1

0

1

0

0

2

2

1

1

2

1

0

1

0

6.7

0

6.7

0.0

0.0

13.3

13.3

6.7

6.7

13.3

6.7

0.0

6.7

0.0

Page 181



Time restrictions on gambling Government websites Strategies involving time restrictions were promoted on the government websites analysed (Table C.13). Four of the seven government websites endorsed time-related restrictions which were included in the literature review. The NSW Gambling Help workbook included the greatest number of these strategies. Setting time limits on play and frequently taking breaks were the two most commonly supported strategies.






Problem Gambling SA




NSW Gambling Help


Table C.13. Government websites: Strategies relating to time restrictions



Gamble no more than 2–3 times per month Take frequent breaks



Got to venues only at set intervals/times



Arrive at the venue a short time before closing







Gamble no more than 1.5 hours a month Instruct the doorman not to let them in again that day Number of strategies per site

0

0

4

1

1

2

% of strategies per site

0

0

54.1

14.3

14.3

28.6

An additional two strategies were suggested on government websites for ways in which consumers may restrict their time spent gambling (Table C.14). The NSW Gambling Help workbook proposed that individuals delay gambling by 30 minutes when arriving at a gambling venue by either engaging in another activity or talking to someone. The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation proposed consumers set an alarm to help them remember and adhere to time limits.


Page 182




Problem Gambling SA



NSW Gambling Help


Table C.14. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to time restrictions



Set an alarm When you arrive at the venue, talk to someone/delay your gambling by 30 minutes. Have access to a watch or clock



Bet on a game before not during the event Do not bet too quickly Set time limits in advance Track the amount of time spent gambling Postpone gambling by telling yourself to wait Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site

0

0

1

0

0

1

0.0

0.0

12.5

0.0

0.0

12.5

Industry websites Industry websites were found to endorse two of the time restriction strategies identified within the literature. Setting time limits on gambling and taking breaks were found to be well supported by industry operators (Table C.15).

1 14.3

0 0.0

Tom Waterhouse

0.0

0 0.0

Tatts


0 0.0

Tabcorp

0

Crown Perth

Got to venues only at set intervals/times Arrive at the venue a short time before closing Gamble no more than 1.5 hours a month Instruct the doorman not to let them in again that day Number of strategies per site

Crown Melbourne




Set time limits on play Gamble no more than 2–3 times per month Take frequent breaks


Centrebet


Bet 365


Table C.15. Industry websites: Strategies relating to time restrictions















2 28.6

2 28.6



1 14.3

2 28.6

1 14.3

Page 183



Three additional responsible consumption strategies were proposed by industry websites. These included ensuring that individuals have access to a watch or clock to monitor time progression, making sure that time limits are set in advance, and tracking the amount of time that is spent gambling (Table C.16).

Set an alarm When you arrive at the venue, talk to someone/delay your gambling by 30 minutes. Have access to a watch or clock Bet on a game before not during the event Do not bet too quickly

Tom Waterhouse

Tatts

Tabcorp

Crown Perth

Crown Melbourne


Centrebet


Bet 365


Table C.16. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to time restrictions









Set time limits in advance Track the amount of time spent gambling Postpone gambling by telling yourself to wait Number of strategies per site

0

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

2


0.0

0.0

12.5

25.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.0



Help service websites Of the seven RG strategies suggested by the literature which involve time restrictions, two were promoted by help service websites. As with the industry operator websites, setting time limits on gambling and taking breaks were frequently endorsed (Table C.17). Ten help service websites encouraged consumers to set time limits and eight encouraged taking frequent breaks when gambling.


Page 184



28.6

28.6

1

2

2

1

0

1

14.3

14.3

28.6

28.6

14.3

0.0

14.3

Nebraska Council

1

Help guide



Gamble Aware AU















0

2

2

2

0

0.0

28.6

28.6

28.6

0

An additional six strategies were endorsed by the help service websites, with the most common being to set an alarm (Table C.18). The Responsible Gambling Awareness Week and British Columbia Responsible and Problem Gambling websites listed the most additional strategies.


VACSAL

2





Salvation Army

2






















Gamble Aware UK

Betsafe



Set time limits on play Gamble no more than 2–3 times per month Take frequent breaks Got to venues only at set intervals/times Arrive at the venue a short time before closing Gamble no more than 1.5 hours a month Instruct the doorman not to let them in again that day Number of strategies per site

Amity

Table C.17. Help service websites: Strategies relating to time restrictions

Page 185



VACSAL

1

1

0

2

1

0

0

3

0

0

0

12.5

37.5

0.0

12.5

12.5

0.0

25

12.5

0.0

0.0

37.5

0.0

0.0

0.0



Help guide

Salvation Army




Nebraska Council



Gamble Aware UK

Gamble Aware AU

0







   

Set time limits in advance Track the amount of time spent gambling Postpone gambling by telling yourself to wait Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site

Betsafe

3

Amity 1



Set an alarm When you arrive at the venue, talk to someone/delay your gambling by 30 minutes. Have access to a watch or clock Bet on a game before not during the event Do not bet too quickly


Table C.18. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to time restrictions







Taking an informed approach to gambling Government websites Taking an informed approach to gambling was identified as key RG strategy in the literature review. A content analysis of government websites revealed that two related strategies were proposed as ways to facilitate RG (Table C.19). Not drinking alcohol or taking substances when gambling was suggested by three websites, as was expecting to lose and seeing winning as a bonus.


Page 186




Problem Gambling SA



NSW Gambling Help


Table C.19. Government websites: Strategies relating to taking an informed approach to gambling

Think about what else the money could buy 

Do not drink/take substances when gambling





Remind self of the negative consequences of gambling Know the risks of gambling Expect to lose and see winning as a bonus







Research a bet well Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site

0

0

2

1

1

2

0.0

0.0

33.3

16.7

16.7

33.3

An additional five strategies which were not identified in the literature review were proposed by government websites in relation to taking an informed approach to gambling. The most frequent of these were the suggestions to ‘exercise control when gambling’ and to ‘know the odds’ (Table C.20).


Page 187



Exercise control over gambling Gamble in a way which does not cause harm or problems for other individuals Know that you cannot win in the long run




Problem Gambling SA



NSW Gambling Help


Table C.20. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to taking an informed approach to gambling

 



Know the odds Do not believe the feeling that you can tell when an EGM is going to pay out. Be aware of thoughts such as ‘I am lucky/on a winning streak’ Think of the people who need your support Make sure gambling does not take priority over friends, work, school and family Do not overestimate your abilities





Calculate how long you have to work to earn that money Read fine print on promotions 

Learn about the chose gambling activity Know the warning signs Do not gamble when recovering from any other form of dependency Do not gamble when taking certain medications (consult your GP) Have realistic expectations about the likely outcome of gambling Think about how you will feel after all the money is gone Consider losses the cost of recreation Realize that knowing more will not guarantee a win Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site


1

0

1

0

2

3

5.3

0.0

5.3

0.0

10.5

15.8

Page 188



Industry websites Industry operator websites were found to only endorse one of the six RG suggestions within the informed approach to gambling category. Not drinking or taking any substances while gambling was proposed by four websites; Centrebet, Crown Perth, Tatts and Tom Waterhouse (Table C.21).

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

1 16.7

Tabcorp

Crown Perth

Crown Melbourne




0 0.0

0 0.0

1 16.7

0 0.0

Tom Waterhouse

Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site



Tatts

Think about what else the money could buy Do not drink/take substances when gambling Remind self of the negative consequences of gambling Know the risks of gambling Expect to lose and see winning as a bonus Research a bet well

Centrebet


Bet 365


Table C.21. Industry websites: Strategies relating to taking an informed approach to gambling





1 16.7

1 16.7

An additional eight suggestions were gathered from the industry websites, with the most common strategy being to ‘exercise control over gambling’, consistent with the analysis of the government websites (Table C.22). The Crown Perth website not only supported the suggestion not to drink alcohol or take substances while gambling, but also proposed an additional three strategies. This website contained the most strategies in this category of all industry operator sites.


Page 189







Tom Waterhouse

Tabcorp



Tatts

Crown Perth

Exercise control over gambling Gamble in a way which does not cause harm or problems for other individuals Know that you cannot win in the long run

Crown Melbourne


Centrebet


Bet 365


Table C.22. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to taking an informed approach to gambling

 

Know the odds Do not believe the feeling that you can tell when an EGM is going to pay out. Be aware of thoughts such as ‘I am lucky/on a winning streak’ Think of the people who need your support Make sure gambling does not take priority over friends, work, school and family Do not overestimate your abilities Calculate how long you have to work to earn that money Read fine print on promotions





Learn about the chose gambling activity



Know the warning signs Do not gamble when recovering from any other form of dependency Do not gamble when taking certain medications (consult your GP) Have realistic expectations about the likely outcome of gambling Think about how you will feel after all the money is gone Consider losses the cost of recreation Realize that knowing more will not guarantee a win Number of strategies per site



0


0.0

0 0.0

1 5.3

0 0.0









2 10.5

1 5.3

4 21.1

2 10.5

1 5.3

2 10.5

Help service websites Of the help service websites analysed, eleven were found to support RG strategies consistent with those proposed by the literature regarding being an informed consumer (Table C.23). The most commonly supported behaviour was to not drink alcohol or take substances while gambling, which was listed on 11 of the websites. Expecting to lose and seeing winning as a bonus was endorsed by three websites.


Page 190










VACSAL



Salvation Army











Gamble Aware UK



Nebraska Council

Gamble Aware AU



Help guide

Betsafe





Think about what else the money could buy Do not drink/take substances when gambling Remind self of the negative consequences of gambling Know the risks of gambling Expect to lose and see winning as a bonus Research a bet well Number of strategies per site

Amity

Table C.23. Help service websites: Strategies relating to taking an informed approach to gambling















2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

0

1

33.3

16.7

16.7

16.7

16.7

16.7

16.7

16.7

33.3

16.7

16.7

50.0

0.0

7.7

Seventeen additional RG strategies were proposed by help service websites which adhered to the strategy of being an informed consumer (Table C.24). The Gambling Help Online website suggested the most additional strategies, followed by the Gambling Impact Society and Nebraska Council website. The most commonly reported of these strategies was to know the odds of the game.


Page 191



Exercise control over gambling Gamble in a way which does not cause harm or problems for other individuals Know that you cannot win in the long run Know the odds Do not believe the feeling that you can tell when an EGM is going to pay out. Be aware of thoughts such as ‘I am lucky/on a winning streak’ Think of the people who need your support Make sure gambling does not take priority over friends, work, school and family Do not overestimate your abilities Calculate how long you have to work to earn that money Read fine print on promotions Learn about the chose gambling activity Know the warning signs Do not gamble when recovering from any other form of dependency Do not gamble when taking certain medications (consult your GP)







 








   



Page 192

VACSAL

Salvation Army 

 




Nebraska Council

Help guide



Gamble Aware UK

Gamble Aware AU

Betsafe


Amity

Table C.24. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to taking an informed approach to gambling


Have realistic expectations about the likely outcome of gambling Think about how you will feel after all the money is gone Consider losses the cost of recreation Realize that knowing more will not guarantee a win Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site




   2

2

1

0

0

4

3

1

3

0

2

0

2

0

10.5

10.5

5.3

0.0

0.0

21.1

15.8

5.3

15.8

0.0

10.5

0.0

10.5

0.0

Avoiding opportunities to gamble Government websites Two of these strategies (avoiding gambling venues, as well as placing bets at a TAB and leaving to watch the race or game at home) were identified by government websites. Two of the six government websites endorsed strategies encouraging consumers to avoid opportunities to gamble (Table C.25).


Problem Gambling SA



NSW Gambling Help


Table C.25. Government websites: Strategies relating to avoid gambling opportunities



Avoid venues which have gambling facilities 

Place bets at TAB and leave to watch the match at home Do not drive past favourite gambling venues Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site

0

0

1

0

1

0

0.0

0.0

33.3

0.0

33.3

0.0

Additional strategies proposed by government websites but not identified in the literature review are listed in Table C.26. An additional 13 strategies to help avoid opportunities to gamble were proposed by the 30 websites audited. Of the six government websites, the NSW Gambling Help workbook website was the only one to propose additional strategies to avoid gambling. These were to collect winnings the next day once races or matches are over, and to avoid jobs which involve handling cash.


Page 193



Problem Gambling SA


Number of strategies per site

0

0

2

0

0

0


0.0

0.0

15.4

0.0

0.0

0.0


NSW Gambling Help



Table C.26. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to avoiding gambling opportunities

Walk away when limits are reached Collect winnings when races are over the next day



Avoid jobs handling cash



Quit while ahead Avoid high risk situations Do not use multiple online gaming accounts Do not gamble with friends that gamble heavily Stop wearing shoes Wear jeans into the city Keep children with you Remove gambling pages from newspaper before reading Block online gambling sites Arrange transport ahead of time and have a back-up plan

Industry websites Table C.27 lists strategies suggested in the literature review for consumers to use in attempting to avoid opportunities to gamble. However none of these were endorsed by industry operator websites.


Bet 365


Centrebet


Crown Melbourne

Crown Perth

Tabcorp

Tatts

Tom Waterhouse

Table C.27. Industry websites: Strategies relating to avoiding gambling opportunities

Avoid venues which have gambling facilities Place bets at TAB and leave to watch the match at home Do not drive past favourite gambling venues Number of strategies per site

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0


0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


Page 194



Only one of the additional strategies proposed to inform consumers about avoiding opportunities to gamble was endorsed and only by one industry operator (Table C.28). Tabcorp suggested that individuals walk away when limits are reached, in order to avoid further gambling.

Tom Waterhouse

0

0

0

0

1

0

0


0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

7.7

0.0

0.0

Tabcorp

0

Crown Perth

0


0

Centrebet

Arrange transport ahead of time and have a back-up plan Number of strategies per site

Bet 365

Tatts

Crown Melbourne



Table C.28. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to avoiding gambling opportunities



Walk away when limits are reached Collect winnings when races are over the next day Avoid jobs handling cash Quit while ahead Avoid high risk situations Do not use multiple online gaming accounts Do not gamble with friends that gamble heavily Stop wearing shoes Wear jeans into the city Keep children with you Remove gambling pages from newspaper before reading Block online gambling sites

Help service websites Table C.29 provides a list of the strategies proposed for consumers to use in attempting to avoid opportunities to gamble. Two of the three strategies (avoiding gambling venues and avoiding driving past gambling venues) were suggested by help service websites. Avoiding gambling venues was the most frequently cited RG behaviour in this category.


Page 195



VACSAL

Salvation Army








Nebraska Council

Help guide


Gamble Aware UK

Gamble Aware AU

Betsafe


Avoid venues which have gambling facilities Place bets at TAB and leave to watch the match at home Do not drive past favourite gambling venues Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site


Amity

Table C.29. Help service websites: Strategies relating to avoiding gambling opportunities



 0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.3

33.3

0.0

33.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.3

Additional strategies proposed by the help service websites, but which had not been identified in the literature review, are listed in Table C.30. Almost all of these strategies were endorsed by the help service websites, with 11 of the total 13 additional RG behaviours promoted. Strategies not listed were collect winnings when races are over the next day and avoid jobs handling cash. The Relationships Australia and Gambling Help Online websites identified a high proportion of additional strategies in comparison to the other help service websites.


Page 196



VACSAL

Salvation Army




Walk away when limits are reached Collect winnings when races are over the next day Avoid jobs handling cash





Quit while ahead Avoid high risk situations



Do not use multiple online gaming accounts Do not gamble with friends that gamble heavily Stop wearing shoes

  

Wear jeans into the city



Keep children with you



Remove gambling pages from newspaper before reading Block online gambling sites



Arrange transport ahead of time and have a back-up plan Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site



Nebraska Council

Help guide



Gamble Aware UK

Betsafe


Amity

Table C.30. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to avoiding gambling opportunities

 

0

1

0

0

3

1

1

1

4

0

0

1

0

0.0

7.7

0.0

0.0

23.1

7.7

7.7

7.7

30.1

0.0

0.0

7.7

0.0

Motivations for gambling Government websites Of the three strategies from the literature review related to motivations for gambling, one (gambling for entertainment, not to make money) was endorsed by three government websites (Table C.31).


Page 197








Problem Gambling SA


Gamble for entertainment, not to make money


NSW Gambling Help


Table C.31. Government websites: Strategies relating to motivations for gambling



Do not be influenced by gambling promotions Avoid betting on hot tips Number of strategies per site

0

0

1

1

0

1


0.0

0.0

33.3

33.3

0.0

33.3

An additional eight suggestions to advise consumers of motivations aligned with RG were identified in the content analysis (Table C.32). Three of these strategies (not gambling when emotional, challenging thoughts and beliefs, and not taking gambling too seriously) were also endorsed by government websites.


Problem Gambling SA



NSW Gambling Help


Table C.32. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to motivations for gambling



Do not gamble when depressed, stressed, bored or upset 

Do not take gambling too seriously Remember that gambling is a game See gambling as a game not a job Do not bet in the heat of the moment Do not give in to peer pressure when gambling



Challenge your thoughts and beliefs Do not gamble to pay bills Number of strategies per site

0

0

0

1

1

1


0.0

0.0

0.0

12.5

12.5

12.5

Industry websites Table C.33 lists motivations which may facilitate RG, as identified in the literature review. Only one of the three strategies (gambling for entertainment and not to make money) was endorsed by gambling-related websites. When industry operator websites were analysed, it was found that all but two sites suggested that entertainment should be the primary motivation for gambling, and not the chance of winning money.


Page 198



Tabcorp

Tatts

Tom Waterhouse



Crown Perth



Crown Melbourne

Centrebet






Bet 365


Table C.33. Industry websites: Strategies relating to motivations for gambling












0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1


0.0

33.3

33.3

33.3

0.0

33.3

33.3

33.3

33.3

33.3

Of the additional strategies proposed to advise consumers about responsible motivations for gambling, two of the eight suggestions were promoted by industry operator websites (Table C.34). These were not gambling when emotional and not taking gambling too seriously. Crown Perth identified both of these strategies, while Crown Melbourne and Tatts promoted one strategy.



Do not gamble when depressed, stressed, bored or upset Do not take gambling too seriously





Tom Waterhouse

Tatts

Tabcorp

Crown Perth

Crown Melbourne


Centrebet


Bet 365


Table C.34. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to motivations for gambling



Remember that gambling is a game See gambling as a game not a job Do not bet in the heat of the moment Do not give in to peer pressure when gambling Challenge your thoughts and beliefs Do not gamble to pay bills Number of strategies per site

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

0

1

0


0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

12.5

25

0.0

12.5

0.0

Help service websites Table C.35 lists motivations proposed to encourage RCG. That the motivation for gambling should be for entertainment and not to make money was suggested by eight of the 14 help service websites.


Page 199










0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.3

33.3

33.3

33.3

0.0

33.3

0.0

33.3

33.3

33.3

0.0

Additional strategies proposed by the help service websites, but not identified in the literature review, are listed in Table C.36. Eight of the 14 websites identified not gambling when emotional to be supportive of RG behaviours. Additional strategies endorsed included seeing gambling as a game, not as a job and not as a means to pay the bills, while the Responsible Gambling Awareness Week website also proposed not betting ‘in the heat of the moment’ and not giving in to peer pressure from friends who may be gambling.


VACSAL

Salvation Army













Nebraska Council




Help Guide

Gamble Aware UK


Gamble Aware AU

Betsafe

BB Responsible & Problem Gambling

Amity

Table C.35. Help service websites: Strategies relating to motivations for gambling

Page 200







VACSAL



Salvation Army












Nebraska Council

Gamble Aware UK



Help guide

Gamble Aware AU

Betsafe


Amity

Table C.36. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to motivations for gambling

Do not gamble when depressed, stressed, bored or upset Do not take gambling too seriously Remember that gambling is a game See gambling as a game not a job Do not bet in the heat of the moment Do not give in to peer pressure when gambling Challenge your thoughts and beliefs Do not gamble to pay bills




2

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

3

2

2

0

25

0.0

12.5

12.5

12.5

12.5

12.5

0.0

12.5

0.0

37.5

25

25

0.0



 

 





Using social support Government websites Three government websites proposed that consumers gamble with others (Table C.37), but no government websites proposed verbally announcing limits to others.


Page 201



Gamble with others






Problem Gambling SA



NSW Gambling Help


Table C.37. Government websites: Strategies relating to using social supports



Verbally announce limits to others Number of strategies per site

1

0

1

0

1

0


50

0.0

50

0.0

50

0.0

Two of the six government websites proposed using additional social support strategies (Table C.38). The NSW Gambling Help website encouraged consumers to have someone in their life who they can talk to about gambling, while the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission similarly encouraged developing a social support network.


Problem Gambling SA


1

1

0

0

0

0


25

25

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


NSW Gambling Help




Table C.38. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to using additional social supports






Industry websites Of the industry operator websites analysed, none suggested using the social support strategies identified in the literature review (Table C.39). Similarly, additional strategies involving utilising social supports were not identified by industry operators (Table C.40). Thus overall, industry operator websites did not promote the use of social support strategies as assisting RG.


Page 202




Bet 365


Centrebet


Crown Melbourne

Crown Perth

Tabcorp

Tatts

Tom Waterhouse

Table C.39. Industry websites: Strategies relating to using social supports


0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0


0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Gamble with others Verbally announce limits to others


Bet 365


Centrebet


Crown Melbourne

Crown Perth

Tabcorp

Tatts

Tom Waterhouse

Table C.40. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to using social supports

Call someone if you have the urge to gamble Number of strategies per site

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0


0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


Help service websites Six of the 14 help service websites proposed the RG strategies identified in the literature review related to using social support. The Gambling Help Online website was the only help service website which endorsed both gambling with others and verbally announcing limits (Table C.41).


Page 203



Verbally announce limits to others Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site

Salvation Army

VACSAL






Nebraska Council




Help guide


Gamble Aware UK



Gamble Aware AU



Betsafe


Gamble with others

Amity

Table C.41. Help service websites: Strategies relating to using social supports





 1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

50

50

0.0

0.0

0.0

100

50

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

50

50

Four help service websites endorsed two different strategies related to utilising social supports which had not been identified in the literature (Table C.42). These were to ask a friend to call you at a designated time and remind you to leave the venue, and to call someone if you have the urge to gamble.


Page 204



Have someone in your life who you can talk to openly about gambling Ask a friend to call you at a designated time and remind you to leave Develop a support network Call someone if you have the urge to gamble Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site



VACSAL

Salvation Army




Nebraska Council

Help guide



Gamble Aware UK

Gamble Aware AU

Betsafe


Amity

Table C.42. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to using social supports







0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

25

0.0

0.0

25

25

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

25

0.0

Using help services Government websites Using help services as a means of facilitating RG was proposed by all government websites. All six websites endorsed using professional help services if required, and five of the websites suggested self-excluding from gaming venues (Table C.43). In addition to these strategies, the NSW Gambling Help website recommended that individuals specifically block and exclude themselves from gambling websites by downloading software that excludes them from betting on any online website (Table C.44).


Page 205



NSW Gambling Help



Problem Gambling SA

Self-exclude from gaming venues

























2

2

2

2

2

1


100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

50.0



Table C.43. Government websites: Strategies relating to using help services


Problem Gambling SA


0

1

0

0

0

0


0.0

100

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

NSW Gambling Help

Block and exclude themselves from gambling websites by downloading software Number of strategies per site



Table C.44. Government websites: Additional strategies relating to using help services



Industry websites All 10 industry websites analysed suggested that gamblers consider self-exclusion as a means of supporting RG, particularly if they feel that they are having difficulty controlling their gambling (Table C.45). Furthermore, all industry operators proposed that consumers seek professional help if required. No additional strategies were suggested by industry websites in this category.


Page 206



Bet 365


Centrebet


Crown Melbourne

Crown Perth

Tabcorp

Tatts

Tom Waterhouse

Self-exclude from gaming venues Seek professional help if required Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site


Table C.45. Industry websites: Strategies relating to using help services









































2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Help service websites Of the 14 help service websites examined, all suggested seeking help from professional services if required, while nine also recommended self-excluding from gaming venues (Table C.46). No additional strategies were suggested by help service websites in this category.

Gamble Aware AU

Gamble Aware UK



Help guide



Salvation Army

VACSAL











































2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

50

100

50

50

50

50


Betsafe



Nebraska Council


Self-exclude from gaming venues Seek professional help if required Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site

Amity

Table C.46. Help service websites: Strategies relating to using help services



Engaging in other activities Government websites Government websites were found to endorse engaging in other activities as a means of facilitating RG. The most commonly supported strategy was balancing gambling with other leisure activities, which was encouraged by three of the websites as seen in Table C.47. The NSW Gambling Help workbook proposed the highest number of strategies relating to engaging in other activities which


Page 207



had been found in the literature review. No additional strategies in this category were proposed by government websites.

Problem Gambling SA






2

1

1

1

40.0

20.0

20.0

20.0





NSW Gambling Help


Table C.47. Government websites: Strategies relating to engaging in other activities





1

0


20.0

0.0

 

Industry websites Industry websites were found to suggest only one of the five strategies involving other activities which were identified in the literature review. Balancing gambling with other leisure activities was proposed by Betfair Responsible Gambling and Tatts (Table C.48).




Tom Waterhouse

Tatts

Tabcorp

Crown Perth

Crown Melbourne


Centrebet


Bet 365


Table C.48. Industry websites: Strategies relating to engaging in other activities




0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0


0.0

0.0

20.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.0

0.0

In addition to these strategies, Betfair also proposed ‘gambling in moderation’, and Centrebet and Tom Waterhouse encouraged not letting gambling interfere with daily responsibilities (Table C.49).


Page 208



Tom Waterhouse

Tatts

Tabcorp

Crown Perth

Crown Melbourne


Centrebet


Bet 365


Table C.49. Industry websites: Additional strategies relating to engaging in other activities



Gamble in moderation





Do not let gambling interfere with daily responsibilities Schedule additional recreational activities into routine Number of strategies per site

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1


0.0

33.3

0.0

33.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.3

Help service websites Help service websites encouraged four of the five RG suggestions found in the literature review which clustered under the category of engaging in additional activities. The most commonly support strategy was that of balancing gambling with other leisure activities, followed by planning an activity for afterwards to be forced to stop gambling and using distractions to avoid gambling (Table C.50).


Page 209



VACSAL

0

1

1

2

2

1

1

3

0

1

0

0

40.0

0.0

0.0

20.0

20.0

40.0

40.0

20.0

20.0

60.0

0.0

20.0

0.0

0.0



Help guide

0

Betsafe

Salvation Army


Gambling Impact Society NSW 


Gambling Help Online 


Gamble Aware UK 

Nebraska Council

Gamble Aware AU 

2

Amity Balance gambling with other leisure activities Book social obligations at times when you may want to gamble Plan an activity for afterward to be forced to stop gambling Reduce frequency of play by engaging in other activities Distract self with other activities Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site


Table C.50. Help service websites: Strategies relating to engaging in other activities



 













In addition to these strategies, the British Columbia Responsible and Problem Gambling websites and the Help Guide website proposed that individuals schedule additional recreational activities into their routines (Table C.51).


Page 210






Salvation Army

VACSAL

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

33.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Help guide

0


0


0

Gamble Aware UK

0

Gamble Aware AU

1

Betsafe

0

Amity

Nebraska Council


Table C.51. Help service websites: Additional strategies relating to engaging in other activities

Gamble in moderation Do not let gambling interfere with daily responsibilities Schedule additional recreational activities into routine Number of strategies per site % of strategies per site






Page 211



Appendix D – Statistical results for comparisons in the expert survey Table D.1. Statistical results for comparisons between terms or concepts that have been associated with responsible gambling consumption Variable 1 Gambling within an individual’s affordable limits of time, money and other resources Exercising informed choice about gambling

Self-regulating one’s own gambling

Low risk gambling

For gamblers to be responsible for their own gambling behaviour

Variable 2 Keeping gambling in balance with other activities and priorities Exercising informed choice about gambling Understanding the risks associated with gambling Understanding the risks associated with gambling Staying in control of gambling Absence of gambling-related harm Adhering to pre-set time and money limits when gambling An enjoyable/pleasurable gambling experience Self-regulating one’s own gambling Avoiding risky gambling behaviours Avoiding risky gambling behaviours Minimisation of gambling-related harm Non-problem gambling Avoiding developing a gambling problem Low risk gambling For gamblers to be responsible for their own gambling behaviour For gamblers to be responsible for their own gambling behaviour Having no concerns about your gambling Having no concerns about your gambling Gambling that sustains wellbeing Gambling that enhances wellbeing

p .099 .001 .001 1.000 .430 .312 .110 .085 .014 .003 .618 .382 .164 .050 .014

Behavioural indicators of responsible gambling consumption

Behavioural indicators of responsible gambling consumption

Suggest Documents

Assessing the effectiveness of a responsible gambling behavioural ...

Geofutures - Responsible Gambling Trust

EVALuATING RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING TOOLS

Download - Responsible Gambling Council

here - Responsible Gambling Trust

Geofutures - Responsible Gambling Trust

The Victorian gambling study - Victorian Responsible Gambling

Problem gambling vulnerability - Victorian Responsible Gambling ...

Responsible Gambling Code of Conduct

Perceived efficacy of responsible gambling strategies

Risk factors for problem gambling - Victorian Responsible Gambling ...

Responsible Gambling Fund Orientation Guide ... - NSW Gambling Help

Risk factors for problem gambling - Victorian Responsible Gambling ...

Embedded Disruption: Facilitating Responsible Gambling with ...

Report template long - Responsible Gambling Trust

Facilitating Responsible Gambling: The Relative ...

Victorian gambling study technical report - Victorian Responsible ...

Victorian gambling study technical report - Victorian Responsible ...

Responsible Gambling Strategy For Older ...

Responsible gambling among older adults: a

Report template long - Responsible Gambling Trust

Problem gambling in licensed bingo premises - Responsible ...

Informed Decision Making - Responsible Gambling Council

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation submission to the ...